University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content CREATING THE CONDITIONS FOR CHANGE READINESS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
AN INNOVATION STUDY
by
Gretchen M. Jameson
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
August 2020
Copyright 2020 Gretchen M. Jameson
ii

DEDICATION

To my grandmother, Irene Staude, never one for pomp or circumstance, you taught me to
appreciate the value of plain, practical learning and doing what makes sense.

To you, Leon, and our girls, Sydney and Rielle, for being my ultimate life cohort.

To dad and mom, my first and forever best teachers.

“Your 'Gloria' lives within you. The greatest sin is not finding it,
ignoring what God made possible in you.”
― Abraham Verghese, Cutting for Stone

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Few journeys in life are successfully accomplished alone. I am grateful for the guidance,
mentorship, and forbearance, the confidence and consolation of so many companions on my
dissertation journey.
I selected the University of Southern California as my academic terminus because I
wanted to go beyond the familiar. I wanted to know myself in a context more diverse (in every
possible way) from where life had thus far led me. I wanted to learn from colleagues who would
push and challenge and disagree, and from professors whom I had never met, who would press
and assess me without bias. I found all of this and so much more.
I am thankful for the members of my committee. Dr. Maria Ott, your example and
mentorship as my professor and as my chair are among the most formative of my life. Dr.
William Bewley, your consistent precision and understated manner produced from me more
exact work; I am grateful. And Dr. Kenneth Yates, your passion for the practice we pursue in this
program lifted the theories to life. Your insight and assessment kept the work real and applicable.
Each of you uniquely bless and impact my learning, and by extension, my life and vocation.
Most of all, I am thankful to God for the gift of my husband, Leon. You are my
encourager and friend. Your belief in me humbles me. Your certitude that I could pursue and
achieve my lifelong academic ambition – from one of the best institutions in the world, no less –
carried my belief, especially on those days when the prize seemed too far to grasp. Thank you for
caring for our girls (all those pizza night Thursdays), sacrificing our family finances, and setting
aside your own priorities and pursuits so that I could, wholeheartedly and with tremendous joy,
Fight On.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
Abstract viii
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Introduction to the Problem of Practice 1
Organizational Context and Mission 2
Organizational Performance Status/Need 2
Related Literature 4
Importance of Organizational Innovation 7
Organizational Performance Goal 8
Description of Stakeholder Groups 9
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals 10
Stakeholder Group for the Study 10
Purpose of the Project and Questions 11
Methodological Framework 12
Definitions 14
Organization of the Study 15
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 16
Understanding Organizational Change 16
Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework 29
Knowledge and Motivation: Influences on Performance 30
Organizational Culture: Influences on Performance 42
Conceptual Framework: Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and
the Organizational Context
52
Conclusion 58
Chapter Three: Methods 59
Introduction to the Methodology 59
Participants, Sampling, and Recruitment Narrative 59
Data Collection and Instrumentation 64
Data Analysis 66
Qualitative Research Principles and Ethics 66
Ethics 69
Limitations and Delimitations

72
v

Chapter Four: Results and Findings 74
Participating Stakeholders 75
Determination of Needs and Assets 78
Results and Findings 80
Knowledge Influences toward Change Readiness 80
Motivation Influences toward Change Readiness 94
Organizational Influences toward Change Readiness 106
Summary of Validated Influences 118
Conclusion 121
Chapter Five: Recommendations 122
Organizational Context and Mission 122
Organizational Performance Goal 123
Description of Stakeholder Groups 124
Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study 125
Purpose of the Project and Questions 126
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 127
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 148
Limitations and Delimitations 169
Future Research 170
Conclusion 171
References 174
Appendices 187
Appendix A: Survey Items 187
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 192
Appendix C: Aligned Influences and Instrument Items 198
Appendix D: Participant Post-Program Evaluation Form 210
Appendix E: Delayed Evaluation Forms 212
Appendix F: Post-Intensive Executive Report Sample Data Presentation 215
Appendix G: Mid-year Executive Report Sample Data Presentations 216

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals 20
Table 2 Knowledge Influences 46
Table 3 Motivation Influences 51
Table 4 Organizational Influences 60
Table 5 Interview Sample by Criteria 85
Table 6 Manager Knowledge of Capabilities to Close Performance Gaps 95
Table 7 Perceived Factor Influence on Change Readiness 98
Table 8 Procedural Knowledge Influences on Readiness 102
Table 9 Perceived Change Valence: Individual and Organizational Levels 105
Table 10 Manager Associations with Change Concepts 119
Table 11 Manager Perception of Change Management Culture (N=58) 120
Table 12 Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 128
Table 13 Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 129
Table 14 Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 130
Table 15 Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 137
Table 16 Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 145
Table 17 Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 153
Table 18 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 160
Table 19 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 162
Table 20 Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 165
Table 21 Evaluation of the Program Learning Components 172
Table 22 Components to Measure Program Reactions 174

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Interaction of KMO influences on stakeholder goal performance 65
Figure 2 Survey participants by hiring classification 86
Figure 3 Survey participants by campus location 87
Figure 4 Survey participants by tenure (more than 7 years, pre-merger) 87
Figure 5 Survey responses, “I know the performance goals for my department.” 92
Figure 6 Performance goal component responses 92
Figure 7 Survey responses, frequency of managerial change behaviors 104
Figure 8 Survey responses, goal orientation 113
Figure 9 Manager perception of change and management 118
Figure 10 Manager perception of learning environment: resources for new ideas 124
Figure 11 Manager perception of learning environment: risk and failure tolerated 125
Figure 12 Manager agreement of managers as connectors 127
Figure 13 Interaction of KMO influences on stakeholder goal performance 171

viii

ABSTRACT
Acute and accelerated change threatens the viability of small, private, nonprofit colleges and
universities. Their futures depend on a capacity to achieve change readiness. This innovation
study analyzes the performance gaps that must be closed in order to establish organizational
change readiness within institutions of higher learning. The organization of focus is a nonprofit
institution of higher learning located in the upper United States’ Midwest. The stakeholder group
of focus is university middle managers. The study uses gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) to
identify possible knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences that impel or
inhibit stakeholder performance, and suggests from the literature a framework for the interaction
of these influences. A one-phase (parallel concurrent) convergent multiple methods design yields
qualitative and quantitative data that facilitate deeper investigation of the assumed KMO
influences. A qualitative 19-item survey and semi-structured, person-to-person interviews yield
data from the identified stakeholder population. The findings reveal an empirically sound set of
assertions, both needs that must be met and assets that can be leveraged, to influence middle
manager performance toward change readiness. This study concludes with evidence-driven
recommendations to address validated KMO influences through training that facilitates the
achievement of the identified goal. The study applies the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016)
to organize the recommendations into a clear, prescriptive plan and offers a clear pathway for
institutional viability within the volatile higher education change landscape.
1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Acute and accelerated change threatens the viability of small, private, nonprofit colleges
and universities. Their futures depend on the capacity to achieve change readiness. Change
readiness refers to an organization’s “shared resolve to implement a change (change
commitment) and shared belief in [its] capability to do so (change efficacy)” (Weiner, 2009, p.
67). That 70% of major organizational change initiatives fail (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Judge &
Douglas, 2009; Vakola, 2014), while U.S. higher education exists in a period of unprecedented
disruption and change (Drew, 2010; Gelaidan, Al-Swidi, & Mabkhot, 2018; Tarrant, Bray, &
Katsinas, 2017) demonstrates that this is a problem. The evidence highlights that organizational
change readiness depends on key change capabilities, namely the individual readiness of
employees and the overall change capacity of the organization (Gelaidan et al., 2018; Nordin,
2011). Because the impetus and subsequent support for change must come from within the
organization, leaders and managers play vital roles in developing the culture necessary for the
formation of these capabilities (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993; Jones, Jimmieson, &
Griffiths, 2005). Yet, the research indicates that university leadership consistently rank building
change capable institutions among their greatest challenges (Drew, 2010; Scott, Bell, Coates, &
Grebennikov, 2010). This gap is important to close because change readiness produces a
competitive advantage (Andreeva & Ritala, P, 2016; Chrusciel, 2006; Teece, Pisano & Shuen,
1997) and is a requirement for institutional validity, relevance (Gelaidan et al., 2018), and
ultimately survival.

2

Organizational Context and Mission
Amity University, Inc. (pseudonym) is a nonprofit institution of higher learning serving
more than 7300 students online, at two residential campuses in the upper Midwest United States,
and at eight center locations across the region. The organization is affiliated with a religious
denomination and is part of a national network of denominational colleges.
Amity’s two residential campuses have very different performance histories. Campus
One was founded in the late 1800s and Campus Two formed as an independent institution in the
early 1960s. Campus One has enrolled the largest student population in the Amity University
System since the late 1980s and has achieved year-over-year operational profitability since the
early 2000s. In 2009, Campus One entered into a strategic relationship with then failing Campus
Two, which led to its formal acquisition in 2013. Today, the University operates independently
under a single president and Board of Regents that fulfills its governance responsibilities and
ensures the autonomy of university administration, faculty, and staff.
The mission statement elevates the organization’s commitment to educate the whole
person and to prepare learners for professional and personal success. The mission provides clear
definition of institutional identity and is a concise articulation of the university’s core purpose.
As such, it shapes every accountability relationship within the organization.
Organizational Performance Status/Need
Private, nonprofit colleges and universities like Amity University face acute and
accelerated economic, technological, demographic, and social value change. Analysis of closed
schools in this category suggests that common at-risk indicators in the areas of enrollment,
revenues, and expenses threaten financial health and erode these schools’ historic enrollment
advantages (Heisler & Hougland, 1984; Lyken-Segosebe & Shepherd, 2013; Porter & Ramirez;
3

2009; Stowe & Komasara, 2016). The research further supports that absent significant
institutional adaptation the competitive futures of these schools are at risk (Baker & Baldwin,
2015; Lyken-Segosebe & Shepherd, 2013; Stowe & Komasara, 2016; Tarrant et al., 2017).
While key performance indicators at Amity University’s acquired Campus Two have held a
positive trajectory since 2013, the institution reports flat enrollment (with declines in certain key
student segments), declining revenue, and increased expenses from fiscal year 2013 to 2018
(Amity University, 2019). This performance indicates the need for innovation in university
practice. However, the evidence supports that change readiness, or the organizational capacity to
achieve equilibrium between external change forces and internal factors, has a greater influence
on institutional viability than these usual suspects of decline, including location and
demographics (Baker & Baldwin, 2015; Lyken-Segosebe & Shepherd, 2013; Stowe &
Komasara, 2016; Tarrant, et al., 2017). Thus, to understand the need for innovation,
consideration must be given not only to Amity University’s key performance outcomes, but also
to its overall state of change readiness.
The creation of change readiness at Amity University hinges on the organization’s
competence to instill a motivational mindset, or belief that change is needed, worthwhile, and
possible, within each individual employee (Armenakis, et al., 1993; Cunningham et al., 2002;
Eccles, 2006). Readiness as a motivational mindset reflects an individual’s value for engagement
and generally leads to increased discretionary change behaviors (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002.
Emotional intelligence and transformational leadership behaviors most influence an
organization’s ability to develop this mindset (Baker & Baldwin, 2015; Dasborough, Lamb, &
Suseno, 2015; Gelaidan, et al., 2018; Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu, 2008; Lyken-Segosebe &
Shepherd, 2013; Nordin, 2011; Tarrant et al., 2017; Vakola, 2014). While specific measurement
4

of employee change readiness at Amity University has not been conducted, a survey of employee
generic engagement levels was conducted in spring 2017. Current performance is mixed with an
overall engagement index ratio (engaged, not engaged and actively disengaged) of 5:1 (45%
engaged, 46% not engaged, and 9% actively disengaged), but overall the institution recognizes
employee engagement as a critical area for improvement, which fueled the development of the
organizational goal discussed later in this chapter.
Change in higher education should be understood as both perpetual and permanent. More
than any environmental factor or data point, attitudes about change and the change behaviors of
faculty, staff, and leaders within these colleges and universities most challenge institutional
capacity to foster the persistent state of readiness necessary for 21
st
century success.
Related Literature
Institutions of higher education operate in an environment of acute and accelerated
change. Survival requires significant institutional adaptation. In particular, small, private,
nonprofit colleges and universities experience unprecedented disruption and change and close at
higher rates than other types of institutions (Stowe & Komasara, 2016), but the factors that most
challenge their survival are not singularly external. Data from the 2013 edition of the Digest of
Education Statistics report that on average five private, nonprofit colleges and universities closed
per year between the academic years 2004 and 2013, with nine of those closures occurring in
2013. While change in higher education is not a new phenomenon, the current pace and degree
of economic, technological, demographic, and social value change produce a chronic instability
that is particularly acute among small schools. The financial crisis of the early 2000s left these
schools particularly vulnerable with disproportionate financial risks (Lyken-Segosebe &
Shepherd, 2013). While nationally enrollment is flat, institutions with low enrollment, limited
5

endowments, and high tuition dependence face year-over-year decline (Moody’s, 2017; Stowe &
Komasara, 2016). Breaking the cycle of decline depends to a great degree on the institution’s
capacity for change. Astin and Lee (1971) classified 491 institutions as at risk and on the
“threshold of closure.” Of those same institutions in 2012, only 16% had closed, while 72.1%
persisted in their overall general profile (as private, nonprofits). An empirical examination of
these colleges through an evolutionary model of change revealed that it was the institution’s
ability to adapt in the areas of enrollment and selectivity that most contributed to its success or
failure over time (Tarrant et al., 2017). Certainly, colleges and universities labor to achieve
stability during times of disruption and change, usually focusing on mitigating external risks
sharpened by the change. These institutions would better build their durability by prioritizing
internal change readiness in advance of major change events.
Change Readiness as a Competitive Advantage
Change is the norm in the higher education market, and colleges and universities risk
their competitive futures when they fail to prepare for it. An institution’s ability to adapt by
preparing each employee to meet and manage change is a key competitive advantage or
disadvantage (Baker & Baldwin, 2015; Dasborough et al., 2015; Tarrant et al., 2017). The
development of individuals is important because employees do not experience change
homogeneously (Dasborough et al., 2015). Rather, perceptions produce emotional responses that
are both positively and negatively mediated by the employee’s capacity for emotional
intelligence, positional security within the organization, and the degree to which the employee
believes the change will impact his or her work (Dasborough et al., 2015; Nordin, 2011; Vakola,
2014). A comprehensive study of academic staff working in the Malaysian university context
evaluated the unique contributions of and relationships among emotional intelligence, leadership
6

behavior, and organizational commitment on change readiness. The findings reveal that these
three variables account for 44.1% of the variance in employee change readiness, with emotional
intelligence making the strongest unique contribution (Nordin, 2011). The findings validate the
importance of preparing for change at the individual level. Yet, given that college and university
senior leaders experience change more positively than less tenured employees and generally
view change as an opportunity to enjoy as opposed to a potential threat (Dasborough et al.,
2015), leaders often overlook this critical work.
In summary, the adroitness by which colleges and universities manage change creates a
competitive advantage or disadvantage. Investing in talent, and specifically, sharpening
individual readiness, can make or break organizational survival. Leadership is crucial to this
strategic work.
Leading Change
Leadership behavior has a significant effect on college and university change readiness,
second only to emotional intelligence (Gelaidan, et al., 2018). Specifically, transformational
leadership most influences employee levels of change commitment. In a multilevel study of 343
employees across 30 organizations, transformational leadership was found to be significant and
positively related to affective change commitment, even when the leader’s competence at
transactional change management behaviors was perceived to be low (Herold, et al, 2008).
However, while university leaders articulate the need to build change capable cultures, the
transformational behaviors necessary for this work do not take priority in their daily realities. In
a national study involving more than 500 higher education leaders in Australia, the vast majority
reported that they have little time to lead and transactional work gets in the way of the
7

transformational, change-related work the leaders recognize as essential (Scott, Coates, &
Anderson, 2008).
It is not enough that college and university leaders know what needs to happen in times
of change. Leaders must act. Higher education exists in a time of permanent change that requires
as a response a state of permanent readiness among leaders at all levels of the organization so as
to recalibrate organizational equilibrium.
Importance of Organizational Innovation
Addressing the problem of change readiness within small, nonprofit, private U.S. higher
education is urgent because these institutions face unrelenting change conditions that put them at
increased risk of closure. When these schools close, the higher education landscape becomes less
diverse and students lose opportunities. Left unsolved, these schools will continue to close at
rates higher than other institutions (Stowe & Komasara, 2016). Of equal concern, the
institutional diversity of the U.S. national college and university system will diminish and along
with it the ability to best meet the needs of diverse learners (Baker & Baldwin, 2015; Gonzales,
2013; Morphew, 2009). A variety of programs, delivery systems, missions, and purposes support
more effective higher education because these ensure that more students achieve their goals
(Harris, 2013). Nonprofit colleges and universities serve 30% of the U.S. student population,
including proportional numbers of low-income students (Chingos, 2017) and make valuable
contributions that help to ensure educational equity and access (Gonzales, 2013; Tarrant et al.,
2017). Closure limits student access and impacts opportunities for increased educational
attainment (Chingos, 2017; Tarrant et al., 2017). Change readiness offers institutions in danger
of decline a competitive advantage and a way forward not only to survive but, ultimately, to
flourish.
8

Organizational Performance Goal
Amity University’s global performance goal is by the close of FY21 to establish baseline
organizational change readiness through ongoing integrated learning that trains 100% of
academic and operations administration, management, and staff to identify, embrace, and
maximize change opportunities (partnership, merger, and expansion). The president’s expanded
leadership team, a strategic group that includes the senior cabinet, vice presidents, vice provosts,
and University deans, developed the goal in fall 2017. It was adopted by the University Planning
Committee and drove the formation of the 2018-2021 University Plan, including all division and
academic school plans. The University Plan was formally received by the Board of Regents in
November 2018. Achievement of the performance objectives presented in the Plan and the
institution’s performance as measured by the University’s Key Performance Indicators will
demonstrate goal attainment.
Evaluation of the organization’s performance toward its goal is important for a variety of
reasons. In an increasingly complex and volatile higher education context, small, nonprofit,
private, faith-based institutions face an increased risk for closure. The 2015 acquisition of Amity
University Campus Two by Amity University Campus One testifies to the threatened future
these institutions face. At the time of the acquisition, Campus Two was the most financially
stressed, least enrolled school within the Amity University System. In the years since, the
campus has seen meteoric growth, doubling its enrollment of traditional undergraduate students
and posting a 15-point improvement in its fall-to-fall traditional undergraduate retention (Amity
University, 2019). The degree to which Amity University successfully maintains and sustains its
performance and overall change readiness in the wake of such significant institutional shift will
determine its capacity to meet the stated global goal. A performance evaluation of key
9

stakeholders within the system will facilitate the organization’s use of data and suggest proactive
strategies to support the pursuit of Amity University’s best preferred future.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Three primary stakeholder groups directly contribute to and benefit from the achievement
of the organization’s goal. These include the Office of Strategy and Institutional Effectiveness,
the President’s Leadership Team, and the university’s academic and operational middle
managers. Each of these stakeholder groups is critical to the achievement of the global goal. The
Office of Strategy and Institutional Effectiveness provides key data to accurately identify the
performance gap and is responsible for the planning, implementation, and assessment of
organization-wide change capability development. The President’s Leadership Team is the
senior administrative body and includes the President, Executive Vice President, Provost, Senior
Vice President for Strategy, Senior Vice President for University Advancement, and the vice
presidents and vice provosts. Largely based at Campus One, the senior administration at Campus
Two includes a Chief Campus Executive. University middle managers include both academics
and operations assistant vice presidents, associate vice provosts, executive directors, and the
academic deans. While the majority of operations and academic management are based at
Campus One, Campus Two houses campus deans for each of that location’s four academic
schools. Middle management participate in the annual President’s Expanded Leadership Team
retreat and many participate as part of the University Planning Committee, which oversees the
development of the institution’s strategic plan. Some operations managers also participate in the
monthly convening of the President’s Administrative Council and the Provost’s Expanded
Academic Council. Middle management almost entirely comprise the university’s Strategic
10

Information and Analysis Committee, a body that works in the gap between academics and
operations to facilitate continuous quality improvement of systems and processes.
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
Table 1.
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
Amity University is a faith based higher education community committed to helping students develop
holistically for service in the Church and world.
Organizational Global Goal
By the close of FY21, establish baseline organizational change readiness through ongoing integrated
learning that trains university leaders to identify, embrace, and maximize change opportunities as
demonstrated by success in the design and implementation of change management initiatives.
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Office of Strategy Senior Leadership Middle Management
By January 2020, the Office of
Strategy supported by the Office
of Institutional Effectiveness
will measure the knowledge,
motivation, and organization
gaps that influence the overall
change readiness levels of
University leaders.
By July 2020, the 32 members
of the President’s Expanded
Leadership Team will be trained
how to lead change and how to
strategically manage resources
in anticipation of total
organizational change
By October 2020, 25% of
university academic and
operational middle managers
will demonstrate the knowledge,
values, and behaviors necessary
to effectuate change in the
organization.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
While achievement of the stated organizational goal requires effort from all stakeholders,
the literature on change readiness emphasizes the outsize role that management plays in change
success (Adner, Helfat, Hoopes, Madsen, & Walker, 2003; Andreeva & Ritala, 2016; Eisenhardt,
Martin, & Helfat, 2000; Rindova & Kotha, 2001; Teece, et. al, 1997; Zollo & Winter, 2002)
Therefore, it is critical to evaluate how middle management progresses toward its performance
11

goal, and thus the stakeholder group of focus for this study is operations and academic middle
managers. The performance goal for this group is that By October 2020, 25% of university
academic and operational middle managers will demonstrate the knowledge, values, and
behaviors necessary to effectuate change in the organization. Failure to accomplish this goal will
stunt the university’s ability to achieve its overall strategic goal to ensure total system change
readiness by the close of FY2021.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
This innovation study analyzes the performance gaps that must be closed in order to
establish organizational change readiness at Amity University (pseudonym) through training that
ensures academic and operational managers develop the necessary dynamic managerial
capabilities, that is the knowledge, values, and behaviors that are necessary to effectuate change
in the organization.
Applying the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model, the study first identifies from
the literature the relevant knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that cause the
performance gap, or needs. In order for the organizational goal to be achieved, these three
factors––knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers (KMO)––must be aligned (Clark &
Estes, 2008). While a complete gap analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical
purposes the stakeholder group for this analysis is Amity University operations and academic
middle managers. Following an identification of possible KMO influences on performance, this
study examines and validates the effect of each on the current performance of the identified
stakeholder group.

12

The questions that guide the study are:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that influence
Middle Managers at Amity University to embrace and effectuate change in their
organization?
2. What are the recommendations for innovative organizational practice in the areas
of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources that will enable Middle
Managers to demonstrate these attributes?
Methodological Framework
Amity University’s attainment of the identified goal depends on knowledge, motivation,
and organizational (KMO) influences that animate or inhibit stakeholder performance. As
previously mentioned, this study applied Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model to identify
the disparity between the university’s current state and its performance goal. The gap analysis
generated assumed KMO influences drawn from the related literature on change readiness.
Qualitative mixed methods were then used to investigate these assumed KMO influences.
Mixed methods research incorporates multiple types of data collection and interpretation
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This approach integrates data to reveal a more robust
understanding of a problem than might be achieved through just one mode of inquiry.
Specifically, this study applied a convergent mixed methods design. Creswell and Creswell
(2018) argue that the key assumption of convergent mixed methods is that data provide different
information, but should yield the same results. Given the research goal to understand the KMO
factors that influence individual managers to effectuate change within the total organization,
convergent mixed methods offer a multi-dimensional understanding from which to generate
recommendations.
13

This study uses two methods of data collection: surveys and interviews. Data were
collected in a one-phase process and converged during analysis. Surveys were distributed to the
94 identified stakeholders and included Likert-scale, multiple choice, and ranking questions
developed from the literature to assess current knowledge about organizational change readiness.
Concurrently, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted to explore and validate the
assumed KMO factors that most influence stakeholder performance. Maximum variation
purposeful sampling was used to identify eight participants from within the study’s stakeholder
group. The interview guide included 15 questions for person-to-person use during a sixty to
ninety minute session. All interviews took place within a three week period at neutral locations
on both Campus One and Campus Two.
Following data collection, rigorous analysis validates the assumed knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences on the identified stakeholder goal and supports the
formation of solutions to close the performance gap. Survey data are analyzed using descriptive
statistics. Interview data are analyzed using a recursive research protocol that facilitates the
identification of KMO themes. Themes are refined as they converge with the survey data and are
analyzed against the study’s proposed KMO conceptual framework. Results of the data analysis
guide the formation of recommended innovations to achieve the identified organizational
performance goal. Categories and broad themes are then drawn from carefully coded data and
merged with the quantitative results in a side-by-side comparison (Creswell, 2018). From this
integrated data set, the researcher imposes a constructivist perspective and compares the results,
highlighting convergence and divergence within key concepts and themes to generate a core
conceptual element from which solutions flow.

14

Definitions
Change from an organizational perspective is an empirically observed “difference in
form, quality, or state over time in an organizational entity.” (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995).
Change capacity within an organization represents both the willingness and capabilities
of “change-makers to assume responsibility for the change,” an infrastructure that can support
and facilitate continuous change, and the necessary resources (Kerber & Buono, 2005, p. 32).
Change readiness refers to an organization’s “shared resolve to implement a change
(change commitment) and shared belief in [its] capability to do so (change efficacy)” (Weiner,
2009, p. 67). According to Holt, et al. (2007), readiness “collectively reflects the extent to which
an individual is cognitively or emotionally inclined to accept, embrace, and adopt a particular
plan to purposefully alter the status quo” (p. 235).
Dynamic capabilities The antecedent behavioral and cultural orientation and routines by
which organizations, and in particular their managers, constantly alter, reconfigure, and integrate
their resource base in response to the changing environment in order to achieve and maintain
value and competitive advantage (Eisenhardt, et al., 2000; Wang & Ahmed, 2007).
Organizational change capacity (OCC) a combination of management and organizational
capabilities, this higher order, generic dynamic capability enables organizations to adapt and
change more rapidly than the competition (Andreeva & Ritala, 2016; Judge & Douglas, 2009;
Sune & Gibb, 2015).

15

Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. This chapter outlines the key concepts and
terminology commonly found in a discussion about 21
st
century higher education challenges and
organizational change readiness. This chapter also introduces the organization’s mission, goals
and stakeholders as well as the initial concepts of gap analysis. Chapter Two provides a review
of current literature surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of dynamic capabilities,
organizational change capacity and ambidexterity, and strategic change management behaviors
as well as exploration of the relevant knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors
necessary for change readiness will be addressed. Chapter Three details the assumed needs for
this study as well as the proposed methodology that will be used for data collection and analysis.
Chapter Four presents the results and findings. Chapter Five offers evidence-based solutions to
address the assumed needs and close the performance gap as well as recommendations for an
implementation and evaluation plan for the identified solutions.

16

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter reviews literature related to creating the conditions necessary for the
development of change readiness within organizations. The chapter begins with broad
consideration of the nature and patterns of organizational change. Then, attention is given to both
established and emerging literature on dynamic capabilities, with particular focus on the concept
of organizational change capacity as a so-called generic capability essential to organizational
survival. Within this framework, the discussion narrows to highlight dynamic management
capabilities that create the conditions of readiness. The chapter concludes with a gap analysis of
the specific knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that mediate the achievement
of the stakeholder goal and the institution’s capacity to develop the conditions required for
organizational change readiness.
Understanding Organizational Change:
The Influence of Capabilities, Capacity, and Strategic Management on Readiness
The (Changed) Nature and Patterns of Organizational Change
The question “how do organizations survive change” motivates extensive scholarship
across disciplines. The answers to this question influence 21
st
century markets across industries;
especially as the pace of change increases and grows more unpredictable. The very nature of
change is changing. This requires the construction of new models that explain how
organizational change occurs and is most artfully managed. Two perspectives anchor the
scholarly conversation of organizational change. At one pole, scholars argue that most
organizations will fail as a result of insurmountable systemic inertia, while the other, the
literature suggests organizations can and do learn to adapt both in advance of and in response to
environmental changes (Navarro & Gallardo, 2003; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008; Rindova &
17

Kotha, 2001; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). This review of the literature considers organizational
change readiness from this second perspective.
Twenty-first century change is diverse and diffuse across markets and within
organizations. Markets fluctuate constantly, but certain markets face massive change as they
open and competition increases (Judge, Naoumova & Douglas, 2009). Higher education is one
such market (Moody’s, 2017). The literature supports that the accompanying environmental
uncertainty catalyzes and accelerates change in unforeseeable ways (Judge, et al., Heckmann,
Steger, & Dowling, 2016; Kotter, 2012; Judge, et al., 2009). Given the resulting, persistent
disequilibrium, adroit change management is an organizational imperative. However, the
outcomes of most change processes are flawed if not failed (Bennebroek Gravenhorst, Werkman,
& Boonstra, 2003). Change initiatives across institutions carry a failure rate of 70% (Beer &
Nohria, 2000; Heckmann, Steger, & Dowling, 2016; Judge & Douglas, 2009). Generally, failure
results from use of long accepted change frameworks that prove anemic in a context of
continuous and unprecedented change (Heckmann, et al., 2016). In short, organizations that do
not recognize the changed nature of change are likely to fail when managing change.
The evolving nature of organizational change requires new approaches that focus less on
what is changing and more on the process of building organizational capacity both in response to
and anticipation of it (Bennebroek Gravenhorst, et al., 2003; Kerber & Buono, 2005). It also
requires heightened organizational awareness. Judge, et al. (2009) find that levels of perceived
environmental uncertainty have a positive, significant influence on an organization’s capacity for
change and its performance. Additionally, the literature supports that successful organizations
match their approaches to change with the particular demands of a given change scenario
18

(Kerber & Buono, 2005). Thus, awareness of the changed nature of change spurs organizations
to better recognize the patterns of 21
st
century change and to more successfully manage it.
Patterns of organizational change. Patterns of organizational change can be episodic
and rare, revolutionary and sudden, evolutionary and emergent, or continuous and gradual
(Andreeva & Ritala, 2016; Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Kerber & Buono, 2005; Romanelli &
Tushman, 1994; Sune & Gibb, 2015; Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). The literature outlines these
patterns and suggests that management processes follow in response to the challenges each
presents. Sune and Gibb (2015) propose that managing change patterns requires adoption of
particular and purposeful change philosophies, which lead to organizational action. In essence,
before change can be managed, organizations and their leaders must understand its patterns.
Within the literature, Kurt Lewin’s (1951) three-stage change pattern, known generally as
the “unfreeze-change-refreeze” approach, supports many classic models of organizational change
(Andreeva & Ritala, 2016; Tushman, Newman, & Romanelli, 1986). Lewin’s theory suggests
organizations generally experience sufficient structural and cultural inertia that must be
unlocked, calibrated, and then locked down in a type of episodic pattern (Brown & Eisenhardt,
1997; Kerber & Buono, 2005; Schein, 1996; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). For decades, Lewin’s
model has provided the primary foundation upon which change theory is built (Schein, 1996).
Among the most prevalent of theories is the punctuated equilibrium model. In this change
pattern, organizations oscillate between long periods of incremental change, interrupted by brief
bursts of radical change (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Tushman & Romanelli, 1985).
The dynamic reality of the 21
st
century environment leaves these classic approaches
outdated and ineffective (Andreeva & Ritala, 2016; Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Kerber &
Buono, 2005). The literature suggests Lewin’s static state, or concept of “freezing,” is unnatural
19

in modern, constant change environments (Andreeva & Ritala, 2016). Likewise, a punctuated
equilibrium pattern does not sufficiently explain the lived experience of many 21
st
century
organizations (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997). Rather, current change patterns are better understood
as endemic and persistent, while also rapid and frequent (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Soparnot,
2011). Brown and Eisenhardt’s (1997) inductive study of multi-product innovation in six firms
examines how organizations participate not in start/stop change, but rather in continuous change,
wherein managerial change competence becomes a survival imperative. In these contexts,
managers must create enough rigidity to ensure that change is organized, while at the same time
ensuring enough fluidity so that change can happen. Brown and Eisenhardt (1997) argue that a
state of dynamic equilibrium facilitates successful organizational change. Thus, the literature
suggests the stronger model for organizational change is that of guided change, which is
iterative, responsive, and directly related to the overall level of change readiness or capacity that
exists within the organization (Kerber & Buono, 2005). Under conditions of dramatic and
continuous change, an organization’s capacity to change is paramount to its long term success.
This notion of change capability as an essential competitive advantage is further developed in the
concept of dynamic capabilities.
Dynamic Capabilities: Organizational Change Capacity and Strategic Management
Dynamic capabilities equip organizations through their management to achieve and
sustain competitive advantage in volatile change environments. Ordinary (passive) competence
develops into dynamic capability when existing organizational processes, positions, and patterns
(routines) reconfigure into new processes, positions, and patterns (Teece & Pisano, 1998). The
term suggests both the volatility of an environment (dynamic) and the critical work of
management (capabilities) (Teece & Pisano, 1998), and tethers to Edith Penrose’s (1959)
20

established literature on the resource based view of the firm, which presents competitive
advantage as a firm’s ability both to exploit current capabilities, while simultaneously
developing new competencies.
Dynamic capabilities differ from routine competencies in three key ways. First, these
processes, routines, resources, and strategies are unique to the organization and difficult (if not
impossible) to replicate. These remarkable assets, as Teece and Pisano (1998) assert, “Typically
must be built because they cannot be bought” (p. 197). Eisenhardt, Martin, and Helfat (2000)
similarly draw from the breadth of the literature to demonstrate these attributes are “valuable,
rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable” (p. 1105). Second, these capabilities influence and
facilitate successful organizational change (Winter, Hoopes, Madsen, & Walker, 2003). Wang
and Ahmed (2007) present dynamic capabilities as both a behavioral and a motivational
orientation that constantly integrate and reconfigure an organization’s resources in response to a
changing context. It is the organization’s capacity to manage comfortably this duality of now,
while next wherein dynamic capabilities prove both structured and persistent, and while at the
same time emergent and evolutionary (Rindova & Kotha, 2001; Wang & Ahmed, 2007; Zollo &
Winter, 2002). Finally, the use or management (not merely the possession) of these capabilities
makes them dynamic. Zollo and Winter (2002) add to dynamic capabilities the layer of
management, conceptualizing management as learned and stable patterns “of collective activity
through which the organization systematically generates and modifies its operating routines in
pursuit of improved effectiveness” (p. 340). Understood through the management lens, dynamic
capabilities are processes, routines, and strategies embedded within the organization, which
enable managers to innovate and reconfigure resources to succeed in rapidly changing
environments (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000).
21

Within the broader context of organizational change readiness, it is useful to understand
that dynamic capabilities initially assume the character of the change pattern within a given
environment and evolve in relation to the degree of market dynamism (Eisenhardt, Martin &
Helfat, 2000; Winter, 2003; Sune & Gibb, 2015). Dynamic capabilities develop most rapidly in
highly volatile settings “where changes are non-linear and less predictable, market boundaries
are blurred and industry structures are ambiguous and shifting” (Wang & Ahmed, 2007, p. 34).
This principle establishes the value for deeper exploration of the literature on dynamic
capabilities in light of this study’s problem of practice. Indeed, just as there exists various
degrees of organizational change, Sune and Gibb (2015) along with Winter (2003), Helfat et al
(2007), and Zahra, Sapienza, and Davidsson (2006) suggest a hierarchy of capabilities within
organizations and define higher order dynamic capabilities as those that ultimately prove
essential in the facilitation of organizational change. Thus, as organizations, and in the case of
this study, twenty-first century colleges and universities, prepare for change, higher order
capabilities may provide a renewable source of competitive advantage.
Dynamic capabilities and competitive advantage. It is appropriate for this study to
further develop the concept of dynamic capabilities as a source of competitive advantage. The
dynamic capabilities approach offers a compelling framework that defines how organizations
sustain competitive advantage in high change environments. This capacity is critical. Andreeva
and Ritala (2016) contend “under conditions of continuous environmental change … the
organizational ability to sustain and renew competitive advantage becomes paramount” (p. 238).
In essence, harnessing the capacity for continuous competitive advantage is perhaps an
organization’s most evolved dynamic capability. Understood in this way, dynamic capabilities
become a critical resource for organizations embedded in volatile, change-rich environments. As
22

the above section outlines, a dynamic capability is much more than a process or practice easily
replicated across organizations, but without guarantee of equal results. While capabilities rely on
processes, positions, and paths, these become distinctive only when they cannot easily be
imitated, and dynamic only when produced in response to or in anticipation of change (Teece, et
al., 1997). Framed as competitive advantage, dynamic capabilities depend on how “valuable,
rare, difficult to imitate, and imperfectly substitutable resource(s) can be created” (Ambrosini &
Bowman, 2009, p. 29).
Managers, and in particular their perceptions and motivations, exert particular influence
on the development of capabilities into dynamic sources of sustainable advantage (Andreeva &
Ritala, 2016; Rindova and Kotha, 2001). As Edith Penrose (1959) establishes in her foundational
work on the resource based view of the firm, competitive value does not come merely from the
possession of capabilities, but from their use. This principle suggests the variable of management
as particularly relevant in the formation of dynamic capabilities that create the conditions for
change readiness, an idea this chapter explores in later sections.
The nature and type of dynamic capabilities: generic vs. domain specific Dynamic
capabilities include both domain-specific and generic capabilities (Andreeva & Ritala, 2016;
Eisenhardt et al., 2000; Wang & Ahmed, 2007). Dynamic capabilities emerge from an
organization’s path-dependent history, which suggests a degree of singularity specific to the
firm; however, certain dynamic capabilities exhibit a core set of common attributes (Eisenhardt
et al., 2000). Eisenhardt, et al. (2000) document these observed commonalities across an array of
empirical studies and suggest that the routines inherent to certain capabilities are quite
commutable. Wang and Ahmed (2007) similarly review the existing research and propose three
common dynamic capabilities: adaptive capability, or the ability of the organization to both
23

identify and to actualize market opportunities; absorptive capability, or the competency to
recognize new information, assess its value, and apply it to current models, and innovative
capability, the agility to develop new products and services through innovative processes that
align with existing competencies. Integration of the literature on organizational change with the
generic or common dynamic capabilities perspective identifies those capabilities most critical for
organizational change success and lasting competitive advantage (Zahra, et al., 2006; Teece,
2014). The following sections of this review explore in detail two such capabilities:
organizational change capacity and strategic management.
Organizational Change Capacity
Organizational change capacity (OCC) is a generic dynamic capability that creates the
conditions necessary for change and thus sustains an organization’s competitive advantage
(Andreeva & Ritala, 2016; Bennebroek Gravenhorst, et al., 2003; Judge & Blocker, 2008). OCC
is best defined as capacity for both adaptation and pro-action. It enables organizations to react to
change and to proactively leverage opportunities to learn and innovate (Heckmann et al., 2016;
Judge & Elenkov, 2005; Soparnot, 2011). Two specific principles central to organizational
change capacity best advance the ideas of this study.
First, both the internal and external environments of the organization can increase or
reduce its organizational change capacity (OCC). Bennebroek Gravenhorst, et al. (2003) suggest
that the outcome of a change process often differs from the initial intention; therefore, it is
critical to manage the organization’s orientation to its environments. Their study reveals that
certain internal organizational postures add to or diminish OCC. The findings suggest five
typical organizational configurations, each of which serve to either prevent or promote change
readiness (Bennebroek Gravenhorst, et al., 2003). Externally, research by Judge, et al. (2009)
24

presents empirical evidence that the degree of perceived environmental uncertainty influences
organizational change capacity, with higher levels of volatility positively influencing OCC.
Whether internal or external, the role of managers occupies an outsize role in nurturing the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences most conducive to change within the given
environment.
Second, OCC carries both a transformational and transactional dimension, and is defined
both by an organization’s context and its processes (Soparnot, 2011). Organizational culture,
both its models and its settings, is vital to OCC. The literature supports that cohesive culture
overcomes negative change attitudes, but again, as with the influence of the overall environment,
the management paradigm is the central facilitating factor. As Soparnot (2011) argues, managers
possess the position to mobilize and persuade and actively engage the organization in the work
of change. Thus, change capacity and overall readiness is as much about the initial
environmental conditions as it is about the effective management of the change process.
As these ideas suggest, organizational change capacity (OCC) relates closely with
management and is an essential muscle for successful change management in highly competitive,
high risk markets (Heckmann, et al., 2016). Certainly, the literature suggests interesting
connections between OCC and an organization’s capacity to sustain competitive advantage in
times of change. However, to fully explore how organizations create the conditions for change
readiness, which is the central pursuit of this study, it is useful to decouple the possession of
dynamic capabilities, such as OCC, from their use (Helfat, et al., 2007). Dynamic capabilities
alone do not create advantage, but rather sustainable advantage is created by the consistent,
dramatic, and repeated strategic use, or management, of these capabilities. The dynamic
capabilities approach centers on the work of leadership, who effectively adapt, integrate, and
25

reshape organizational resources to meet the demands of changing environments (Judge &
Blocker, 2008; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece et al., 1997). It is to the pivotal role of strategic
change management that this review now turns.
Strategic Management: Leadership and Continuous Change
An organization’s ability to change depends on the strategic change capacity of its
managers (Adner et al., 2003; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Helfat et al., 2007; Teece et al., 1997;
Teece, 2007). Fundamentally, organizations react to and proactively prepare for variables that
stand either to enable or impede performance, and the perceptions and motivations of managers
are the crucible for this effort (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009; Zahra et al., 2006). Again, citing
Penrose, scholars stress that resource value, of which management is an example, depends on
deployment, not merely possession (Lockett, Thompson, & Wright, 2005). Helfat et al. (2007)
extend this important decoupling and suggest that the possession of these capabilities is also not
akin to competitive advantage. The value comes from their use. Ultimately, the organization’s
decision to build a change adroit management capability is a critical connector to innovation,
new behaviors, and the formation of long-term, sustainable competitive advantage (Smith, Binns,
& Tushman, 2010). Thus, strategic change management is itself a generic dynamic capability
that underpins the organization’s deployment of all other dynamic capabilities and serves as a
sort of ultimate constraint on organizational growth.
Dynamic managerial capabilities and actions. How managers best lead in the midst of
evolving, volatile, and unpredictable change environments occupies considerable interest in the
research. There is consensus that dynamic capabilities are central to the regeneration of
competitive advantage under extreme, constant change conditions, and most clearly “manifest in
the decisions of senior management to maintain ecological fitness,” as managers establish
26

coherence between an organization and its changing environment (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008,
p.189; Corrêa, Bueno, Kato, & Silva, 2019; Rindova & Kotha, 2001; Smith, et al., 2010).
Specifically, the ability of managers to influence and define the processes, positions, and paths of
the organization is paramount to organizational success.
Managers must strike the right balance of change management to ensure consistent
conditions of change readiness, an outcome described by Kerber and Buono (2005) as dynamic
stability. Just as awareness of the changed nature of change enables organizations to more
successfully manage it, the more dynamic the market sector, the greater the chances of the
organization developing dynamic capabilities, including dynamic managerial capabilities (Adner,
et al., 2003; Fainshmidt, Nair, & Mallon, 2017). Furthermore, the greater the presence of these
managerial capabilities, the more quickly managers detect unpredictable and unexpected changes
(Adner, et al., 2003). This suggests something of a virtuous circle with a positive and significant
connection between perceived environmental uncertainty and organizational change capacity
(Judge & Douglas, 2009), wherein dynamic managerial capabilities feed organizational change
capacity and ultimately, readiness. Thus, dynamic managerial capabilities involve first an ability
to sense, seize, and reconfigure organizational resources, while at the same time exploring new
performance pathways.
Sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring. The competence of managers defines an
organization’s trajectory and is as scarce a resource as any other (Teece et al., 1997). Teece and
Pisano (1998) identify the most critical managerial capabilities as sensing, seizing, and
reconfiguring. Zollo and Winter (2002) similarly extend the definition of dynamic capabilities to
include management, which they define as learned and stable patterns “of collective activity
through which the organization systematically generates and modifies its operating routines in
27

pursuit of improved effectiveness” (p. 340). They argue that some organizations perform more
effectively during change and are better prepared for change because some organizations are
“culturally disposed toward betting on change,” and enjoy management that has “successfully
instilled an acceptance of continual change practices” (Zollo & Winter, 2002, p. 346).
Dynamic change management is managerial competence deployed; principally with
regard to the construction of cultural settings and models, wherein the manager plays an outsize
role. In high-velocity economies, dynamic capabilities particularly rely on the generation of new
knowledge to solve problems (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Helfat & Peteraf, 2015). Thus, the
cognitive capabilities of managers underpin the capacity of the organization to effectively
develop and successfully deploy dynamic capabilities. Searching, sensing, and reconfiguring are
fundamental managerial mindsets that spark the development and deployment of broader
organizational dynamic capabilities. (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009; Helfat et al., 2007).
Managers must be able to sense change, seize the moment, and understand how to reconfigure
the firm’s assets to meet new challenges. The ability to perform these skills is directly influenced
by the manager’s own levels of knowledge and motivation, which will be explored in the KMO
review in the later portion of this chapter.
Exploiting and exploring: the animating capability of ambidexterity. Another
perspective argues ambidexterity, or the capacity of managers and organizations simultaneously
to exploit existing resources and to explore new paths, infuses organizational capabilities with
the dynamic energy necessary to overcome institutional inertia. Exploration involves activities
and attributes such as innovation and risk-taking, while exploitation includes task values such as
efficiency and execution (Nemanich & Vera, 2009).
28

Ambidexterity is essential to change success and the maintenance of long-term
organizational viability (Andreeva & Ritala, 2016; Nemanich & Vera, 2009; O’Reilly &
Tushman, 2004; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008; Taylor & Helfat, 2009; Tushman & O’Reilly,
1996). Primarily, this success relies on managers, who prove skilled at playing two games at
once and guide their organizations to do the same. Tushman and O’Reilly (1996) suggest
ambidexterity is “the real test of leadership,” wherein managers demonstrate capacity to
“compete successfully by both increasing the alignment or fit among strategy, culture, and
processes, while simultaneously preparing for the inevitable revolutions required by … change”
(p. 11). Capable, ambidextrous managers destroy and defend; sustaining culture that is both tight
and loose as they engineer a delicate balance of scale and restraint, team and autonomy. In
essence, ambidexterity is the center point of creating the conditions of readiness.
Like all dynamic capabilities, effective performance demands managers both possess and
use ambidexterity. Case studies and related empirical studies across the literature elevate the
particular and influential role of top management (leadership) on middle manager willingness to
use ambidextrous capabilities (Taylor & Helfat, 2009). Smith, et al.’s (2010) qualitative study,
including in-depth interviews and observations of 12 management teams, reveals four
management behaviors that reflect the core of ambidexterity: dynamic decision making, building
commitment to vision and specific goals, active learning, and healthy conflict. Taylor and Helfat
(2009) add to these findings and outline four categories that influence ambidextrous managerial
performance: economic, structural, social, and cognitive. From an organizational perspective,
ambidexterity manifests either as structural or contextual. Within structural systems,
ambidexterity is limited largely to the senior leadership team, while in contextual settings,
ambidexterity permeates the cultural model so that there is broad change support throughout the
29

system (Smith, et al., 2010). These various knowledge, motivational, and organizational
influences on managerial ambidexterity warrant gap analysis; and it is to that focus this chapter
now turns.
The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework
Choosing the right solution to a perceived performance problem requires clarity about the
problem’s scope and complexity; in particular, the distance or gap between present performance
and intended or goal performance. As outlined in the preceding chapter, this study applies Clark
and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model to identify and to bridge the disparity between current state
and goal state middle management performance at Amity University (pseudonym). While the
findings of the general literature review offer an array of insight and recommendations that
enhance this study and inform the proposed research methodology, the gap analysis framework
leverages this evidence to meaningfully solve the problem and improve performance.
Gap analysis includes both identifying a performance gap and diagnosing its causes.
Clarity of performance goals is foundational to this work (Clark & Estes, 2008). The initial steps
of Clark and Estes’ (2008) model include the precise articulation of the stakeholder goal and
organizational goal, the alignment between the two, and the distance between current and future
states. Then, the model imposes a three-fold framework to diagnose the causes of the gap
through investigation of the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO)
influences that animate or inhibit stakeholder performance (Clark & Estes, 2008).
This innovation study will adapt the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO model to identify and
to understand performance gaps that must be closed in order to establish organizational change
readiness at Amity University. The following section defines each factor and applies the
literature to identify how the influence may shape performance within the study’s proposed
30

primary stakeholder group. Amity University’s attainment of its goals depends on these KMO
influences. Thus, identifying the assumed KMO influences on managers’ development of the
necessary self-efficacy to perform dynamic managerial capabilities is critical work that drives
subsequent inquiry, enables research to validate the assumed results, and sparks the formation of
meaningful solutions to the problem.
Knowledge, and Motivation Influences on Performance
Knowledge and motivation develop individual and organizational change readiness
(change commitment and change efficacy) as a result of meaningful learning (Mayer, 2011); the
outcomes of which are increased achievement, self-regulation, expertise, and engagement
(Rueda, 2011). Learning organizations embrace the imperative to invest in the development of
their people, who then prove more adaptable and more durable during times of change (Elmore,
2002; Jones, 2001). The literature supports that the behaviors and attitudes that develop as a
result of organizational learning are the same behaviors and attitudes that influence change
readiness (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). In change-rich environments, motivation and knowledge
influences cooperate in a virtuous cycle of learning that creates and grows readiness.
Knowledge and Skills
Frameworks proposed by Clark and Estes (2008), Krathwohl (2002), and Mayer (2011)
suggest how to guide cognition and construct the type of instruction best suited for a given
learning context. Clark and Estes (2008) posit four types of knowledge and skill construction:
information, job aids, training, and education. Krathwohl (2002) structures knowledge as an
outcome into four categories that build from basic to more complex: factual knowledge,
conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge. Mayer (2011)
extends these categories, and frames the content of knowledge into five types: facts, concepts,
31

procedures, strategies, and beliefs. Together, these three frameworks are important to understand
because effective learning depends on pairing the right knowledge type with the needs of a given
learning situation.
In change-rich environments, effective learning must generate factual, conceptual, and
procedural knowledge that can be applied, or transferred, to solve novel, often unexpected
problems (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009, Carpenter, 2012; Clark & Estes, 2008). Grossman and Salas
(2011) argue that the positive transfer of learning is essential to achieve a competitive advantage
in the 21
st
century knowledge economy. Colleges and universities that educate their people to
transform past practice to better meet the demands of the present stand to achieve a competitive
advantage over organizations that overlook these learning outcomes. The evidence particularly
supports the usefulness in high change settings of education that improves individual levels of
emotional intelligence and self-efficacy, twin attributes essential to the cultivation of
organizational change readiness (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Clark & Estes, 2008; Gelaidan et al.,
2018; Nordin, 2011). Thus, learning that enhances the change readiness of the entire organization
educates individuals so that they can effectively transfer knowledge from the learning
environment into their daily work.
Knowledge influences toward change readiness. Determining whether or not people
possess different types of knowledge is the first step toward achieving change readiness
performance goals (Armenakis, et al., 1993; Clark & Estes, 2008). The literature on change
readiness supports that factual, procedural, and conceptual knowledge are of particular influence
in shaping an individual’s beliefs, attitudes, and ultimately, behaviors (Armenakis, et al., 1993;
Jones, et al., 2005). To achieve the stated stakeholder goal, leaders at Amity University must
drive the active creation of such readiness.
32

Factual knowledge. Factual knowledge is the most basic requirement for problem
solving (Krathwohl, 2002). It is essential to the construction of change readiness at the individual
and organizational levels. Readiness literature supports that precise, complete knowledge about
organizational performance gaps, or the identified discrepancy between where the organization is
and where it needs to be, underlies change readiness (Armenakis, et al., 1993; Cunningham, et
al., 2002). According to Holt et al. (2007), readiness “collectively reflects the extent to which an
individual is cognitively or emotionally inclined to accept, embrace, and adopt a particular plan
to purposefully alter the status quo” (p. 235). While this definition touches on motivation and
organizational influences that will be discussed in subsequent sections of this review, the
knowledge influence in pursuit of cognitive alignment is essential to the problem of practice.
Managers use factual knowledge to influence change in a desired direction. The evidence
supports that at the most basic level this knowledge type provides individuals with a sort of
cognitive onboarding to the appropriateness and need for change in advance of change events.
Holt et al. (2007) presents qualitative and quantitative research conducted among 900
organizational managers, representative of a wide range of educational, functional, and
organizational backgrounds, to isolate the factors that most influence change readiness. Their
findings support that educating and informing individuals about discrepancy, or the need for
change, is a leading factor toward readiness (Holt et al., 2007). These findings extend earlier
work by Van de Ven and Poole (1995), whose exploration of dialectical change outlines the
cognitive pre-work required to create a state of readiness within individual actors and, ultimately
within organizations.
Once the gap is known, the literature evidences that change readiness is further primed
when leaders communicate facts relative to the organization’s capabilities to close the gap
33

(Jones, et al., 2005; Armenakis, et al., 1993). Defined by Jones and her colleagues as reshaping
capabilities, the evidence supports that an individual’s factual knowledge about this discrete set
of knowledge, skills, and abilities within the organization positively influences readiness (Jones
et al., 2005). Additionally, the related research suggests that it is the individual employee’s
relationship with his manager that most influences this readiness (Miller, Madsen, & John,
2006). Thus, to achieve the stated stakeholder goal, Amity University managers must know the
capabilities that are required and employees must know that their managers possess this
knowledge.
Conceptual knowledge. Literature on change readiness supports the importance of
acquiring conceptual knowledge about the nature of change. Conceptual knowledge deepens
understanding and practice and influences performance (Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011). In the
study of change readiness, conceptual knowledge includes critical principles, schemas, and
related models of change. Specifically, to meet Amity University’s stakeholder goal, managers
must know the degrees of both employee and organizational change readiness, commitment to
change, and urgency, and the ways that these factors interleave to intensify readiness.
(Armenakis, et al., 1993; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Holt, et al., 2007; Wanberg & Banas,
2000). These ideas forge the common core of change readiness and deeply influence goal
attainment.
Conceptual knowledge reveals reciprocal relationships between discrete capabilities
(factual knowledge) and enables the application of more comprehensive change models. Holt
and his colleagues (2007) explain readiness as an attitude simultaneously influenced by content
(factual knowledge), process (procedural knowledge), context, and individual characteristics.
Their findings support change readiness as a multidimensional construct, a five-part framework
34

that includes: change efficacy, discrepancy, personal valence, organizational valence, and senior
leadership support (Holt et al., 2007). In a related study of four leading change theories, Van de
Ven and Poole (1995) similarly support that change is best learned as a complex conceptual
interplay between multiple theories. They argue this approach is best applied in organizational
contexts where change processes go on concurrently, or “nested” across multiple levels, teams,
and departments (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995, p. 521). Wanberg and Banas (2000) extend such
thinking to the individual level and suggest managers must know the influence that individual
variables (self-esteem, perceived control, and optimism) exert within context-specific variables
(change information, participation, change-specific self-efficacy, social support, and perceived
impact) to shape change readiness.
Procedural knowledge. Procedural knowledge focuses on the steps required to perform a
specific skill or task. It is an important knowledge influence to understand accurately with regard
to change readiness. Counter to how many change initiatives are managed, change readiness is
most effectively developed through transformational leadership directed at individual employees,
not through transactional competencies broadly delivered through institutional training
(Dasborough et al., 2015; Herold et al., 2008 Nordin, 2011; Vakola, 2014). Therefore, with
regard to critical procedural knowledge, managers need to know how to perform the strategies
that most influence individual commitment toward organizational change readiness (Armenakis,
et al., 1993; Holt et al., 2007; Jones, et al., 2005; Miller, et al., 2006). The effective delivery of
these strategies influences both cognition and behavior and ultimately deepen an employee’s
overall commitment to change.
The literature on readiness supports this reciprocal bond between attitude, knowledge,
and behavior. Comprehensive work in this area contributed over many decades by Meyer and
35

Allen (1991) explores the mediating influence of commitment on individual change readiness
and related behaviors. Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-part conceptual framework structures
organizational commitment as affective, continuance, or normative. Extended by Herscovitch
and Meyer (2002), the framework supports that each type of commitment carries implications for
work-relevant behavior that can be specifically developed through the appropriate delivery of
procedural knowledge. Thus, as the following sections argue, while change readiness is most
aptly understood as a motivational mindset, creating readiness is a proactive work and is
accelerated through specific procedural knowledge that enables managers to deliver strategies
more likely to change employee cognition and influence their beliefs (Armenakis, et al., 1993).
The interplay between knowledge and motivation influences on change readiness creates an
important dynamic within learning organizations. Closing knowledge gaps prepares individuals
to more keenly experience motivational influences, and it is these influences that the following
section explores. Table 2 displays these influences, pairing each with a means for assessment.

36

Table 2
Knowledge Influences
Organizational Mission
Amity University is a faith based higher education community committed to helping students develop
holistically for service in the Church and world.
Organizational Global Goal
By the close of FY21, establish baseline organizational change readiness through ongoing integrated
learning that trains university leaders to identify, embrace, and maximize change opportunities as
demonstrated by success in the design and implementation of change management initiatives.
Stakeholder Goal
By October 2020, 25% of university academic and operational middle managers will demonstrate the
knowledge, values, and behaviors necessary to effectuate change in the organization.
Assumed Knowledge Influences Knowledge Type
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Managers need to know the
organizational performance gaps
between where the organization
is and where it needs to be, and
the change capabilities required
to close the gap.
Factual Managers identify the
organizational performance goal
and related performance gaps
and can explain specific
managerial capabilities that can
be used to close these gaps.
Managers must know the
degrees of both employee and
organizational change readiness,
commitment to change, and
urgency, and the ways that these
factors interleave to intensify
readiness.
Conceptual Managers identify the levels of
employee change readiness,
commitment, and overall
organizational urgency, and
their responses are contrasted
with employee survey results of
the same items.
Managers need to know how to
perform strategies that most
influence the factors that create
employee change readiness.
Procedural Guided by a list of the
factors, managers explain
how they have successfully
used various change
strategies within specific
work situations to leverage
these factors toward
readiness.
37

Motivation
Motivation sparks and sustains learning. It is at once a process, a mind-set, and a belief
that produces persistent performance (Rueda, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008) define motivation as
the product of the experiences people have as they interact with their work, their colleagues, and
a host of other factors within the work environment. Various frameworks within the literature
organize the components, causes, and principles of motivation and explain its influence on
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011, Rueda, 2011). Rueda (2011) identifies four
hallmarks of motivation; it must be personal, activating, energizing, and directed. Mayer (2011)
organizes the process of how motivation works on the basis of five drivers: interest, beliefs,
attributions, goals, and partnerships. Across the research, the common indicators of active
choice, persistence, and mental effort signal the degree of motivation, and the evidence supports
that these factors can be developed to achieve performance goals. Connected to the problem of
change readiness, change and motivation exist in correlative concert.
Motivation influences toward change readiness. Motivation is the fundamental driver
for change. Knowledge is proven to influence readiness, but ultimately readiness hinges on a
motivational mindset, or belief that change is needed, worthwhile, and possible (Armenakis, et
al., 1993; Cunningham et al., 2002; Eccles, 2006). Holt and colleagues (2007) argue, “readiness
collectively reflects the extent to which an individual is cognitively and emotionally inclined to
accept, embrace, and adopt a particular plan to purposefully alter the status quo” (p. 235). Thus,
knowledge and motivation, cognition and emotion, practice and purpose together influence
readiness. Managers are central to this work because the impetus and subsequent support needed
to create readiness must come from within the organization (Armenakis, et al., 1993). This
influence elevates the importance of meeting the stakeholder goal at Amity University.
38

The literature on change readiness focuses on three motivational influences that are of
particular strength in developing readiness. Value, efficacy (both individual and collective), and
goal orientation, and specifically the degree to which active participation toward goal
achievement influences individual motivation, will be further developed in this section.
Cost. Cost is a key motivational influence and is part of a larger concept known as
expectancy value theory. Expectancy value theory suggests two questions that most influence an
individual’s behavior: “can I do the task” (efficacy) and “do I want to do the task” (valence)
(Eccles, 2006). An individual’s desire to engage depends on the answers to both questions, but is
particularly driven by valence, or value, for change. In order to meet the stakeholder goal, Amity
University managers need to believe that the effort, emotion, and energy (even perhaps to a
negative degree) required for change are worth the cost.
The perceived value on short and long term goals and the perceived cost of the task
determine the cost value (Eccles, 2006). Quantitative work in the field of change readiness
supports Eccles’ thesis. Holt and his colleagues (2007) explicitly identify personal and
organizational valence as two of five leading readiness factors that motivate change. Related
studies further support that the primary variable between change management and
implementation success is the extent to which employees believe that change will net a positive
value for their own individual experiences (Jones et al., 2005). Ultimately, the achievement of
valence develops the individual’s affective commitment, or desire and motivation to persist
within the organization (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). In this way, readiness is best understood
as a motivational mindset that reflects an individual’s value for engagement, and leads to
increased discretionary change behaviors. Related to the identified stakeholder goal, both cost
and utility (that is the positive for the larger good of the organizations) value are understood not
39

only as a key motivation influence on university managers, but also as a key motivation
influence that managers must develop in others.
Efficacy. Change readiness as defined within this review refers to an organization’s
shared resolve to implement a change and belief in [its] capability to do so (Bandura, 2000).
Efficacy is at the heart of readiness. As individuals consider, “can I do the task,” it emerges as a
key influence on motivation. Efficacy differs from expectancy, which relates to the individual’s
belief in a successful outcome. Efficacy is the belief in competence and capacity. This emphasis
on belief underscores that creating the conditions for change readiness is fundamentally about
changing cognition and influencing beliefs, attitudes, and intentions at the individual and
organizational levels (Armenakis, et al., 1993). As argued in the earlier section of this review,
factual knowledge about the discrepancy that warrants change is a critical influence in change
contexts. Additionally, managers must possess conceptual knowledge about the dynamic
reshaping capabilities required to foster change readiness (Jones, et al., 2005). However,
knowledge absent a corresponding confidence that the individual or the organization possesses
the capability to correct the discrepancy or to perform the necessary behaviors can result in
counterproductive performance (Bandura, 2000). Thus, efficacy, the belief that a task can be
done, emerges as a dominant influence on individual and collective motivation, action, and
accomplishment (Bandura, 2000; Pajares, 2006). The literature supports that the degree to which
individuals perceive both self and collective efficacy directly determines the achievement of
readiness (Bandura, 2000; Armenakis, et al., 1993). Armenakis and his colleagues (1993) argue
efficacy is the predominant influence that bridges knowledge toward action. Their articulation of
readiness as a cognitive precursor to change behavior includes both knowledge and belief as
essential elements to generate agency. Therefore, the active creation of readiness requires
40

changing not just what an individual knows, but also what he believes and thinks about what he
knows.
Further, an individual’s readiness for change can be influenced by the readiness of others
(Armenakis, et al., 1993; Jones, et al., 2005; Miller et al., 2006). Collective efficacy is the notion
that a group’s activities are the result both of the knowledge and motivation of individual
members, as well as the “interactive, coordinative, and synergistic dynamics of their
transactions” (Bandura, 2000, p. 75). Efficacy as a group-level construct is essential to Amity
University’s stakeholder goal. Managers must possess personal belief in their own individual
efficacy, but it will be their collective work, the work that Kotter (2012) defines as led by the
guiding coalition, that will ultimately enable the organization to achieve its goals.
Goal Orientation. Goal orientation is how an individual or organization orients toward
the achievement of a given goal. The strength of the literature on transformational leadership
behavior and its mediating role in the formation of change readiness (Gelaidan, et al., 2018;
Herold, et al., 2008; Scott et al., 2010) elevates goal orientation, specifically the importance of
mastery-orientation over a transactional, performance-orientation, as a central driver for
motivation in change contexts (Yough & Anderman, 2006). Mastery-orientation prizes learning,
understanding, and involvement, or active participation (Pintrich, 2003). Multiple studies on
change readiness support active participation as a central factor in the development of individual
and organizational change readiness (Cunningham, et al., 2002; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002;
Miller, et al., 2006; Pasmore & Fagans, 1992). Miller and colleagues (2006) in their study of
employees working at four for-profit companies identify three factors that most influence
readiness among individual employees: management/leader relationship, job knowledge, and job
demands. Of these three, Miller et al. (2006) identifies the relationship with management as most
41

influential, particularly when these relationships yield opportunities for individuals to take an
active role in their work. Along these lines, the comprehensive study of more than 880 healthcare
staff by Cunningham et al. (2002) concludes that active jobs, where managers encourage
participation in problem solving and afford individuals control over challenging tasks, better
develop readiness. Individuals in these types of jobs report higher degrees of readiness,
participate in greater numbers of change activities, and report a stronger affective commitment to
organizational change than do those in passive jobs. Applied to the identified stakeholder goal,
managers at Amity University must provide ample opportunities for active participation within
routine work and in specific change circumstances in order to build a mastery orientation toward
change readiness. Table 3 displays these influences and the way each is best assessed.
Table 3
Motivation Influences
Organizational Mission
Amity University is a faith based higher education community committed to helping students develop
holistically for service in the Church and world.
Organizational Global Goal
By the close of FY21, establish baseline organizational change readiness through ongoing integrated
learning that trains university leaders to identify, embrace, and maximize change opportunities as
demonstrated by success in the design and implementation of change management initiatives.
Stakeholder Goal
By October 2020, 25% of university academic and operational middle managers will demonstrate the
knowledge, values, and behaviors necessary to effectuate change in the organization.

42

Table 3 continued
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivation Influence Assessment
Cost Value: Managers need to believe the effort,
emotion, and energy of change are worth the cost.
Managers are interviewed to determine the degree
to which they find change-related effort, emotion,
and required energy “worth” the personal and
collective cost.
Efficacy: Managers must believe in their
individual and collective capability to achieve
change goals.
Managers complete surveys to assess their
individual and collective levels of confidence to
successfully implement change behaviors and
reach the goal state.
Goal Orientation: Managers must provide ample
opportunities for active participation within
routine work and in specific change circumstances
in order to build a mastery orientation toward
change readiness.
Managers participate in “think aloud” discussion
events with their colleagues (heterogeneous mix)
to explore their understanding of change goals and
their approach (performance/mastery) to change
goal achievement in terms of active participation
(self and of their workers).
Organizational Culture: Influences on Performance
Organizational culture occupies an outsized place in organizational change and
performance research. This interest among scholars exists in large part because more than any
other variable, culture carries capacity both to solve immediate problems of survival and
adaptation, and to insure that an organization continues to survive and adapt (Schein, 2010).
Culture interleaves within the various layers of an organization. It is both visible and supported;
individual, while also collective. Schein (2010) defines culture as “the accumulated shared
learning of [a] group as it solves its problems of external adaptation and internal integration”
(Schein, 2010, p. 6). Thus, at its most elemental, organizational culture connects to
organizational change. Schein (2010) identifies accumulated shared learning as “a pattern or
system of beliefs, values, and behavioral norms that come to be taken for granted as basic
assumptions and eventually drop out of awareness” (p.6). In this way, culture is both organic and
also dynamic. Culture perpetually evolves and is therefore particularly significant to the
43

development of change readiness. While certain culture types evidence stronger change
performance outcomes than others, ultimately, it is the strength of the culture that improves
performance (Smart & St. John, 1996). This section of the gap analysis explores this essential
third element of Clark and Estes’ (2008) framework; the organizational influences that propel or
inhibit stakeholder performance at Amity University.
Cultural Models and Settings
Organizational culture manifests in two primary ways within a system; as cultural models
that influence the organization at a macro-level, and as cultural settings, which are more discrete
and action or context specific. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) define cultural models as
“shared mental schema or normative understandings of how the world works or ought to work”
(p. 47). In essence, cultural models are abstract tools that construct the shared mindset of an
organization. Cultural settings include more concrete tools that construct the system’s lived
experience. Cultural settings occur within organizations when people come together to
accomplish specific tasks (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Models and settings are closely
woven, interconnected principles of culture that are essential to apply in order to develop a
thorough understanding of an organization or a system.
Cultural design and change readiness. Organizational design establishes the cultural
models and settings most conducive to the formation of change readiness. This is the critical
work of leaders and managers. Senge (1990) discusses the roles that leaders play in this work as
designers and teachers. Cultural models infuse organizations with governing ideas of purpose,
vision, and core values. The establishment and nourishment of the cultural models are essential
work of the leader as designer. Then, leaders must manage cultural settings, institutionalize and
teach the policies, strategies, and structures that translate the organization’s espoused ideas into
44

action (Senge, 1990). Navarro and Gallardo (2003) argue that managers in higher education play
a significant role in organizational design because they operationalize the culture, and thus
determine the behaviors that set the organizational climate. Climate shapes each individual’s
interactions with and perceptions of the culture, which constructs readiness (Jones, et al., 2005;
Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). Designing a cultural infrastructure that uses cultural models
and cultural settings to develop readiness in advance of change is far more effective than
attempting to redesign cultural settings and recast cultural models the midst of change (Moran &
Brightman, 2001). When managers design cultural models and settings that anticipate and absorb
change, overcome institutional inertia, and continuously calibrate equilibrium, they advance the
essence of change readiness.
The mediating influence of culture on change readiness. “The content of change
matters as much as the context of change” (Weiner, 2009, p. 67). If organizational readiness is
understood to be a shared team property, the unique interaction of change valence and efficacy,
context as culture is the critical variable. Empirical studies evidence cultural models and cultural
settings that influence the greatest potential opportunities for readiness (Weiner, 2009). In the
following section, consideration is given to the cultural models and cultural settings that exert
influence within the stakeholder group of focus at Amity University. Each identified influence
supports the achievement of the performance goal and is therefore critical to assess within this
gap analysis framework.
Organizational Influences: Cultural Models
A culture of conscious leadership and continuous change. In the 21
st
century’s volatile
change environment, change readiness depends on an organization’s cultural disposition and its
willingness to embrace continuous, guided change (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Kerber &
45

Buono, 2005). This cultural model develops within the organization (Armenakis et al., 1993;
Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997) through conscious leadership that overcomes natural organizational
tendencies toward inertia (Navarro & Gallardo, 2003). As discussed earlier in this chapter,
organizations encounter varying change patterns and must match processes to those patterns to
achieve change success. Continuous change departs from Lewin’s (1947, 1951) seminal three-
stage organizational change process of unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. This pattern, which
assumes long periods of incremental change broken by brief episodic change, is not the
experience of organizations in relentless change environments. The model requires fresh
thinking.
Change ready cultures embrace a continuous morphing approach that relies on leaders,
who consciously resist inertia, which impedes change and threatens survival (Rindova & Kotha,
2001). These leaders create cultural maps that effectively link fresh vision to a relentless change
environment (Kerber & Buono, 2005, p. 27; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). Brown and Eisenhardt
(1997) suggest that such organizations “must be grown, not assembled at a single point in time”
(p. 31) and demand cultures that are appropriately rigid (guiding), while also adequately flexible
(morphing). In these dynamic, yet stable cultures, leaders reconstruct Lewin’s (1947, 1951) three
stages: freezing, to understand the influence of change or to ready for assumed change;
calibrating or balancing the culture and its context; and unfreezing, releasing the change-ready
culture (Kerber & Buono, 2005).
Indeed, continuous change has become synonymous with 21
st
century organizational life.
It no longer has a beginning and an end, but rather is ongoing and requires guidance and
awareness not only at the top, but throughout the organization. To achieve its stakeholder goal,
46

Amity University must break organizational inertia through the development of a conscious
leadership culture that breeds an organizational familiarity with continuous change.
A management culture that values change. As this chapter previously explores, an
organization’s change readiness depends on its management. Additionally, change valence is a
key construct in this study’s definition of change readiness (Weiner, 2009) and an essential
motivational influence. Culture imposes a mediating influence on these factors. As a result, to
meet its stakeholder goal, Amity University must build a culture among University middle
management that values change.
A cultural model that embraces values for change enables readiness. Such culture is, as
Soparnot (2011) presents, the critical “facilitating initial condition,” (p. 648) and cannot be
manufactured through the change process. Either the culture values the very idea of change or it
does not. The formation of cultural change valence depends on managers who exhibit shared
belief and deliver it through a cultural mindset that enables organizational evolution (Rindova &
Kotha, 2001; Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009). Thus, managerial capacity to “mobilize and to wield
strong powers of seduction,” develops a strong, positive organizational stance toward change
(Soparnot, 2011p. 654). Ultimately, this mindset informs the various mechanisms, or routine
activities, processes, and procedures that form the organization’s cultural setting. These will be
discussed in the following section. However, the antecedent to setting is a shared set of beliefs
and values, a cultural model that Zollo and Winter (2002) argue is “culturally disposed toward
betting on change” (p. 346).
Organizational Influences: Cultural Settings
Where cultural models are shared schema and normative, usually unstated,
understandings about how an organization operates, cultural settings are more explicit activity
47

contexts wherein values, goals, and purpose are evident through cultural scripts that govern
interaction. The following section outlines three setting specific cultural influences that affect
change readiness at Amity University.
An ambidextrous change management framework. The unique nature of higher
education requires a distinctive change management approach that fits the institution’s cultural
models (Kezar, 2001). Generally, higher education has held a narrow, limited view of
organizational change. However, as cultural models adapt to significant environmental
disruption, new and more effective change management frameworks are needed. First,
institutions must understand why change is necessary; recognizing change “forces and sources”
as Kezar (2001) labels them. Then, to achieve coherent change management, institutions must
create shared perspectives about the degree of change, timing of change, and the scale and focus
of change. This framing matters because low change success is often the result of a change
management framework that is mismatched to the specific change problem (Kerber & Buono,
2005). Creating the conditions for change readiness requires change management processes that
are most appropriate to the situation.
An ambidextrous, continuous change management approach offers a framework
particularly well-suited for high density change contexts, where the system must continuously
grapple with “overlapping change” (Kerber & Buono, 2005, p. 27; Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997;
Schein, 2010). As the general literature review previously explores, as a dynamic capability,
ambidexterity is the ability of an organization simultaneously to explore new innovations and to
exploit existing strategies and is a key element of long term organizational change success
(Nemanich & Vera, 2009; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2004; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008; Taylor &
Helfat, 2009). As a management approach, ambidexterity unseats entrenched theories of change,
48

such as the punctuated equilibrium model that defines change as rare and episodic, and favors
management driven processes, procedures, and behaviors necessary for effective performance in
highly volatile contexts (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997). Organizations that create and maintain
cultural settings through ambidextrous management frameworks “place different bets, implicitly
or explicitly, on the strategic importance of change in the future” (Zollo & Winter, 2002, p. 346)
In this management design, low barriers enable the exploitation of new ideas, even as the
organization leverages existing resources, capabilities, and competences (Zollo & Winter, 2002).
The fact is that most people want change to come to an end, but this is not the lived reality of
most organizations and certainly not the lived experience in 21
st
century higher education. To
succeed, Amity University must analyze the influence of its existing change management
framework and determine its appropriateness relative to the degree of complexity and uncertainty
of the change the institution faces.
The organizational learning environment. The organization’s learning environment
directly influences the culture toward change readiness (Schein, 2010; Schultz, 2014; Scott et al.,
2010). In high change environments, mechanisms that support the rate and capacity for learning
are among an organization’s most sustainable competitive advantages (Senge, 1990). Moreover,
deliberate learning enables the development and the evolution of dynamic capabilities, which
include organizational change capacity and ambidextrous management. As Teece, et al. (1997)
posit, dynamic capabilities are an organization’s ability to “integrate, build, and reconfigure
internal and external competences to address rapidly changing environments” (p. 516).
Organizational routines, processes, and procedures inculcate learning (Schultz, 2014; Scott et al.,
2010) and result in the necessary operational processes, positions, and paths to support change
readiness (Teece, et al., 1997). Specifically to meet the stakeholder performance goal, Amity
49

University must assess the influence of manager learning on the overall development of change
readiness.
Managers as connectors. Organizational influences support change readiness when
managers act as organizational connectors, who align abstract beliefs and values with practice
and performance to achieve contextually ambidextrous, change receptive cultural settings. Smart
and St. John (1996) support that culture creation consists not only in the abstract (beliefs, norms,
and values), but also in the concrete as management practices and processes align with abstract
ideas. The degree of this alignment signals the degree of culture strength within the organization.
The stronger the culture, the more likely it is that the organization will achieve performance
outcomes (Smart & St. John, 1996). With respect to change, the employee relationship with their
managers is the strongest predictor of readiness for change (Miller, et al., 2006). Moreover,
managers are the lynchpin of dynamic stability and create integration across organizational
culture (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). These nimble leaders recognize the duality of their work,
which requires them both to constantly achieve alignment and fit for short-run organizational
success, while at the same time pursuing and juggling innovation and change. Thus, adroit
managers who use processes and procedures to meet the needs of the moment, while also
connecting the individual workers to a change ready cultural mindset construct the conditions for
readiness.

50

Table 4
Organizational Influences
Organizational Mission
Amity University is a faith based higher education community committed to helping students develop
holistically for service in the Church and world.
Organizational Global Goal
By the close of FY21, establish baseline organizational change readiness through ongoing integrated
learning that trains university leaders to identify, embrace, and maximize change opportunities as
demonstrated by success in the design and implementation of change management initiatives.
Stakeholder Goal
By October 2020, 25% of university academic and operational middle managers will demonstrate the
knowledge, values, and behaviors necessary to effectuate change in the organization.
Assumed Organizational Influences Organizational Influences Assessment
Cultural Models
The organization needs to develop culturally
conscious leadership capable of overcoming
cultural inertia to evolve continuously into new,
change-ready cultural models. (Cultural Models)
Middle managers are surveyed to assess the
degree to which these stakeholders recognize
cultural inertia within the organization’s culture
and climate.
There must be a culture of individual and
collective change commitment (valence) among
University middle management.
Middle managers are surveyed to determine the
level of individual and collective change
commitment within the stakeholder group.
Cultural Settings
The organization needs to adopt a situationally-
adroit, ambidextrous change management
framework appropriate to the degree of
complexity and uncertainty of the change.
Qualitative interviews with purposefully chosen
stakeholder sample to discover how managers
deliver dynamic management capabilities in
situationally ambidextrous ways.
Managers need to learn to change in order to
develop the organization’s change capacity.
Quantitative survey of middle managers to assess
their learning about change management and
organizational change capacity.

51

Table 4 continued
The organization needs to use middle managers as
organizational connectors and align abstract
beliefs and values with practice and performance
to achieve a contextually ambidextrous, change
receptive setting.
Survey of middle managers to assess their level of
perceived active influence over issues that they
define as most critical to the institution’s future.
Qualitative interviews with purposefully chosen
stakeholder sample to discover how managers
align beliefs with practice.
Why do some organizations survive, while others do not? What organizational mindsets
and mechanisms deliver successful performance? In this time of unprecedented change,
institutions that survive possess receptiveness and readiness. Assuming modest parity of initial
knowledge and motivational influences, an organization’s structure—its character and the
alignment of its individual employees as organizational citizens— may well prove the
determining variable.
Culture is the epicenter of competitive advantage. This includes both models of unspoken
values, norms, and beliefs; and settings, those specific processes and organizational routines that
map the way business operates. Change readiness depends on managerial capabilities to sense
the need for change, to seize the resources required for the moment, and to reconfigure the
context to accomplish the performance goals. Teece et al. (1997) define this approach as a
humble outward gaze, “In dynamic environments, narcissistic organizations are likely to be
impaired. The capacity to reconfigure and transform is itself a learned organizational skill.”
(p.521). Thus, meeting the identified stakeholder goal requires an organizational cultural mix
that deepens individual and collective knowledge and motivation, continuously morphing the
organization toward readiness.

52

Conceptual Framework:
The Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and the Organizational Context
A conceptual framework is a system that brings coherence to a proposed research study.
It is a critical component of quality inquiry; an intentional construction of “concepts,
assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories” that establishes the setting from which a study’s
research questions and methods derive validity (Maxwell, 2013, p. 39). The researcher as
architect applies the literature and suggests what may be happening within a particular problem.
The result is a model that proposes not only the problem’s primary factors, influences and
variables, but more critically proposes the relationships between these elements (Maxwell,
2013). Every study has a conceptual framework that is implicit or explicit. By making plain the
underlying ideas and concepts, a well-crafted conceptual framework informs the study and offers
a particular “lens” that sharpens the phenomena and generates unique interpretation (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Such an outcome is the hallmark of well-designed inquiry.
Quality design requires the researcher to construct coherence from the literature and her
experiences and assumptions. To extend the architectural metaphor, well designed frameworks
must be built, not borrowed from pre-fabricated, existing models (Maxwell, 2013). While
previous studies, approaches, and existing schemas offer guidance, conceptual framing is an
artful endeavor that reflects the intentionality of the researcher and the particulars of the study.
The importance of distinctive conceptual framing and original interpretation is particularly
relevant to the problem of organizational change readiness.
High velocity, dynamic environments demand new ways of thinking about problems and
original interpretations of long-established variables and influences. Disruption breaks cycles of
organizational inertia that create and sustain rigid patterns of thought and behavior (O’Reilly &
53

Tushman, 2008). Judge and Blocker (2008) vividly argue that organizations must learn to
simultaneously fly the plane while rewiring it. These principles apply equally to the research and
inquiry within the field. “There is no recipe for shaping strategic change” (Butler, 2003, p. S49).
Thus, the door stands open to build on the literature, apply fresh frameworks in contextually
precise ways, and thereby contribute to the emerging conversation about organizations and
change.
In addition to the existing empirical and theoretical literature, a study’s conceptual
framework rests on the particular philosophical position, or worldview, the researcher holds
about the nature of reality and the acquisition of knowledge (Maxwell, 2013). A worldview from
the perspective of research is understood as a collection of beliefs and assumptions that
determine action and influence research approaches and design (Creswell, 2018). Worldview
influences a study’s methods, data interpretation, and eventual findings and recommendations
(Creswell, 2018; Maxwell, 2013). Particularly given the role the researcher plays as the primary
instrument in qualitative design (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), it is essential that researchers be
explicit about the worldviews that influence their work.
This study furthers a constructivist worldview. Constructivists seek understanding of
contexts and recognize the complexity of perspectives inherent within every system and
organization (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The constructivist approach is inductive, which
makes it useful for qualitative inquiry. Constructivist research approaches sense-making within
specific contexts with awareness of the researcher’s own personal, cultural, and contextual
experiences (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The constructivist approach not only acknowledges
these perspectives, but welcomes them and values the numerous, individual ways that people
make meaning and make their worlds “visible” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 14). The meaning
54

that individuals ascribe to change, including how they conceptualize and respond to it, drives the
change capacity of organizations (Weiner, 2009; Herold, et al., 2008; Holt et al., 2007; Van de
Ven & Poole, 1995). Thus, the constructivist approach proves particularly relevant in the study
of change readiness.
Thus far, this chapter explores the general empirical and theoretical literature on the
development of change readiness within organizations and offers an analysis of the assumed
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that mediate the achievement of the
stakeholder goal. None of the presented findings, theories, or influences operate in isolation.
Application of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework (explained earlier in this chapter)
reveals that to close the identified performance gap, knowledge, motivation, and organizational
(KMO) factors must be considered in concert. Furthermore, the literature on change readiness
supports such dynamic interplay (Armenakis et al., 1993; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Meyer &
Allen, 1991). Indeed, the potential for Amity University to achieve its stakeholder goal hinges on
the interaction between knowledge and skills, and motivation—specifically cost value and
efficacy—and organizational culture and context at the individual and at the collective levels.
Figure 1 below illustrates this conceptual framework.
55

Figure 1. Interaction of KMO influences on stakeholder goal performance.
As the figure conveys, the conceptual framework incorporates the literature on change
readiness into Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model and proposes how these influences
cohere to achieve change efficacy among university middle managers. This framework curates
from the literature a careful set of findings, theories, and concepts related to dynamic
capabilities, organizational change capacity, ambidexterity, and the role of managers to affect
readiness, and sorts these into Clark and Estes’ (2008) prescribed sets of knowledge, motivation,
and organization influences. The figure displays this effort and illustrates stakeholder knowledge
and motivation influences, the influences of the organization’s cultural models and settings, and
the interplay between the factors. The following section explains the key components of the
framework that the figure illustrates.
The dotted-line circle that surrounds the system represents cultural models, or the
organization’s beliefs and values. Cultural models are the primary influence on the attitudes,
behaviors, and relationships within the organization. Key cultural models at Amity University
56

include its degree of continuous change and related schema for conscious leadership (Brown &
Eisenhardt, 1997; Kerber & Buono, 2005; Armenakis et al., 1993; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996;
Rindova & Kotha, 2001) and the culture’s normative understanding toward change valence,
commitment, and efficacy (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009; Rindova & Kotha, 2001; Soparnot,
2011; Zollo & Winter, 2002).
The central dark gray circle identifies the cultural setting, which occupies a prominent
place at the very heart of the system. Broadly, cultural setting or context includes the lived
positions, processes, and pathways that operate within the system and establish the climate for
the organization’s culture, including its change orientation (Schneider et al., 1996; Teece &
Pisano, 1998). The cultural setting influences that mediate stakeholder performance include
Amity University’s change management framework (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Kezar, 2001;
Kerber & Buono, 2005; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2004; Taylor & Helfat, 2009; Zollo & Winter,
2002), orientation toward organizational learning (Senge, 1990; Teece, et al., 1997; Schultz,
2014; Beer & Nohria, 2000), and processes that activate managers as key connectors or links,
whose dynamic management behaviors drive change readiness (Smart & St. John, 1996; Miller,
et al., 2006; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996).
The lighter gray circles that flank the cultural setting depict how knowledge and
motivation relate and influence stakeholder performance. The framework for this study suggests
that KMO factors interact as Clark and Estes (2008) prescribe, but extends these to incorporate
the three classes of managerial dynamic change capabilities: sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring,
which Teece (2007) identifies (and this chapter previously discusses). While KMO factors are
interdependent, the framework of this study suggests not equally so. Specifically, the figure
represents with a white arrow the impact of knowledge on motivation. This depiction represents
57

findings within the literature that establish managerial cognition as a precursor to the
development of dynamic capabilities, including organizational change capacity and
ambidexterity (Helfat & Peteraf, 2015). The idea that stakeholder knowledge drives individual
motivation, yet with motivation influences the cultural setting, fits the literature (Armenakis, et
al., 1993; Jones, et al., 2005; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Specifically, this assumption fits the
findings of related studies on dynamic capabilities, organizational change capacity, and
ambidexterity that suggest these capabilities are developed within organizations and actualized
through an array of organizational processes, strategic positions, and the pathways open to an
organization given its specific context or cultural setting (Armenakis et al., 1993; Brown &
Eisenhardt, 1997; Soparnot, 2011; Novarro & Gallardo, 2003).
Finally, the conceptual framework presents two critical ideas that drive the central
questions and methods of the proposed study. First, the figure shows that cultural models and
setting exert influence on stakeholder knowledge and motivation. However, as the dual direction
arrows indicate, stakeholder knowledge and motivation in turn exert influence on the cultural
setting. This assumed interaction is significant. Organizations are made up of individuals. The
figure shows that as the organization influences its people, the change-related knowledge,
beliefs, and attitudes of the people influence the organization. Thus, the framework positions the
influence of the individual as a central consideration in the construction of change readiness
theory (Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector, 1990; Armenakis, et al., 1993). Second, the figure illustrates
that as the KMO factors interact and move the organization to achieve the stakeholder goal, new
influence loops back into the system, alters the cultural models, and continues the cycle. This
continuous loop represents the very nature of change readiness (Jones, et al., 2005; Zollo &
Winter, 2002). Change within 21st century organizations is changing. Rapid and frequent change
58

is endemic and the historic conceptualization of organizational change as a static performance
competence delivered in bursts of punctuated equilibrium proves insufficient (Brown &
Eisenhardt, 1997; Judge, et al., 2009). The framework for this proposed study structures change
readiness as a continuous guided cycle, a series of interrelated actions and reactions that sustains
receptivity and achieves a state of dynamic stability that holds individual actors and their
organizations receptive and ready (Kerber & Buono, 2005; Soparnot, 2011; Tushman &
O’Reilly, 1996).
Conclusion
This innovation study collects evidence that proposes the conditions, behaviors, and
attitudes necessary for Amity University to achieve its organizational performance goal to
establish change readiness. To inform this study, this chapter reviews literature related to
creating the conditions necessary for the development of change readiness within organizations.
The review outlines dynamic capabilities and highlights dynamic management capabilities that
create the conditions of readiness. The literature review supports a gap analysis that generates
assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on stakeholder performance at
Amity University. The knowledge influences include factual, conceptual, and procedural
knowledge that can be applied, or transferred, to solve problems in change-rich environments.
The motivation influences include cost value related to manager perceptions about the change-
related effort, efficacy (both individual and collective) on the part of stakeholders as they
consider change, and goal orientation delivered through active participation that generates
readiness. Finally the organizational influences include the organization’s design of its cultural
models and settings that influence the conditions necessary for change readiness. Chapter Three
describes the proposed validation process for these influences.
59

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction to the Methodology
This innovation study applies the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to
understand how colleges and universities create conditions for change readiness through
improved middle manager performance. A convergent multiple methods design yields qualitative
and quantitative data that facilitate deeper investigation of the assumed KMO influences.
The questions that guide this study are:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that influence
Middle Managers at Amity University to embrace and effectuate change in
their organization?
2. What are the recommendations for innovative organizational practice in the
areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources that will enable
Middle Managers to demonstrate these attributes?
Participants, Sampling and Recruitment Narrative
The stakeholder group of focus for this study is Amity University operations and
academic middle managers. This population consists of 94 employees. Roughly 28% (N = 27) of
the population are operations managers and identify as assistant vice president, executive
director, director, assistant director, or manager. Operations managers work in the Advancement,
Business and Finance, Facilities, Human Resources, Information Technologies, and University
Affairs divisions. Approximately 71% (N=67) are academic managers and hold titles including
dean, assistant vice provost, executive director, director, assistant director, or manager. These
employees work in the Extended Campus, Institutional Effectiveness, Office of the Provost,
Student Engagement, and Student Life divisions, or in one of the University’s six academic
60

schools. The proposed sample accurately represents the whole of Amity University’s middle
management, including academic and operations managers from the university’s two residential
campuses. It includes managers who held their positions before the 2013 campus acquisition, and
managers who began their leadership following the acquisition. The study will survey as many
stakeholders as possible and proposes to use purposefully chosen maximum variation sampling
in semi-structured, person-to-person interviews.
Mixed methods design necessitates data convergence and often involves different
sampling methods for various data sets. The use of multiple types of inquiry achieves a multi-
dimensional perspective that enables the eventual formation of cohesive conclusions (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Specifically, the study uses a one-phase (parallel concurrent) convergent
multiple methods design and data collection occurs along parallel lines of inquiry during the
same timeframe. While all 94 managers are invited to complete the survey, for the interviews the
researcher uses maximum variation sampling to purposefully identify those stakeholders
representative of the broadest range of characteristics within the study’s constraints (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The following sections describe with specificity the proposed sampling and
recruitment methodologies.
Survey Sampling Strategy, Criteria, and Rationale
Valid sampling methods support accurate generalizations about a study’s target
population (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). For this study, the goal is to determine the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that most influence the conditions for change
readiness among Amity University middle managers. Toward that end, survey distribution to all
qualifying managers ensures that the sample size is as large as possible. Furthermore, ensuring
61

the data include 20-30 respondents within each of the following subgroups supports statistical
significance (Fink, 2013).
Criterion 1. Hiring classification. Managers at Amity University designate as either
academic or operations. Applying the division structure (above section), 67, or approximately
71% of middle managers classify as academic and 27, or approximately 29%, classify as
operations.
Criterion 2. Geographic campus. Amity University occupies two primary residential
campuses. Middle managers are physically located on one or the other, although their job duties
often span both campuses. Seventy or approximately 74% of middle managers are based at
Campus One and 24, or approximately 26% are based on Campus Two.
Criterion 3. Tenure pre/post acquisition. Chapter One explains that in 2009, Campus
One entered into a strategic relationship with then failing Campus Two, which led to its formal
acquisition in 2013. Forty-nine or approximately 52% of middle managers held their current
roles prior to the July 2013 acquisition and 45, or approximately 48% began their leadership
post-acquisition.
The study assumes the target population possesses a general willingness to participate
given that the organization’s change readiness goal anchors strategic plans that managers help to
author. Thus, the study does not offer incentives. Recruitment tactics leverage existing internal
mechanisms to promote participation, including emails, announcements at manager meetings,
and secondary invitations from University vice presidents, who oversee the work of the target
population. Chapter Four presents the participation results captured during the proposed three-
week survey window.

62

Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Interviews are rich sources from which to mine data. This study applies maximum
variation sampling to identify interview subjects from the target population. Participants engage
in 60-minute person-to-person, semi-structured conversations with the researcher. The following
subsection details the recruitment strategy. To begin, it is useful to consider the qualitative
sampling criteria that constrain the study.
Use of a semi-structured interview guide (Johnson & Christensen, 2014; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016) allows the researcher to explore assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences, and the interactions among them, on change readiness at Amity
University. Chapter Two presents these assumed influences from the literature in significant
detail. The interviews give particular attention to each manager’s individual interpretations about
his or her confidence to perform dynamic managerial capabilities as a critical influence on
organizational change readiness.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) posit that “there is no answer” (p. 101) to the question, how
many in a qualitative sample? Rather, the sample size must be adequate enough to reach data
redundancy. Indeterminate by design, this guiding parameter underscores the critical role the
researcher plays in qualitative inquiry and the necessity of her ongoing reflexivity. This study
includes 8 interviews based on Creswell and Creswell’s (2018) guidance that solid qualitative
analysis yields five to seven themes for a particular study, and on the directive from Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) to achieve purposeful maximum variation sampling, wherein the goal is to capture
patterns that emerge from “widely varying instances of the phenomenon” (p. 98). Engaging
enough participants to achieve redundancy, while applying these principles requires a sample
size sufficient to the task.
63

Criterion 1. Geographic campus. The perspectives on the two campuses illuminate the
heart of the proposed study’s conceptual framework: the mediating influence of cultural setting
on change readiness. As previously noted, Amity University occupies two primary residential
campuses. Middle managers are physically located on one or the other, although their job duties
may span both campuses. Approximately 74% of middle managers are at Campus One and
approximately 26% are on Campus Two. The interaction between stakeholder knowledge and
motivation within the broader cultural model both influences and is influenced by the
organizational culture, which directly impacts stakeholder performance. Thus, the study
purposefully samples the target population to ensure proportional input from both campuses.
Criterion 2. Leadership influence. While all of the target population meet the proposed
qualifications, some middle managers sit on the President’s Leadership Council (PLT), while
others do not; membership being a function of tradition and ad hoc practice, not intentional
design. However, inclusion on or exclusion from this influential roster may yield unique insights
into the research questions and related influences. The literature on change readiness identifies
that senior leaders often experience change more positively than less tenured employees, who
more often perceive change as threatening (Dasborough et al., 2015). Thus, this criterion is a
useful subgroup to include in the larger design to explore the difference that varying degrees of
managerial leadership influence exert on the conditions of change readiness. Of the 8 managers
to be interviewed, half sit on the PLT and half do not.
Criterion 3. Tenure pre/post acquisition. As indicated above, approximately 62% of
middle managers held their current roles prior to Campus One’s July 2013 acquisition of Campus
Two, and 38% began their leadership post-acquisition. Of particular interest, how does
institutional factual knowledge differ between these managers? Is there a difference in their
64

individual and collective sense of efficacy dependent on their management experience pre or
post acquisition? This criterion presents a unique opportunity to create meaning related to the
conditions that breed change readiness, especially alongside the survey data. Of those
interviewed, the study includes four who did not hold their positions prior to the merge. Of those
four, three are new to the organization entirely.
Interview Sampling Recruitment and Rationale
The researcher uses purposeful, maximum variation sampling to recruit interview
participants. As Merriam & Tisdell (2016) argue, purposeful recruitment strategy allows for the
selection of participants precisely because of their unique experiences and competencies. One of
the most unique experiences at Amity University is the 2013 acquisition of Campus Two, an
event that distinctively shapes the institution’s particular history and current practice. Because
nonrandom sampling facilitates discovery around “issues of central importance to the purpose of
the inquiry” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 96), the researcher can account for variables, in this
case the total organizational change variable of a major acquisition, that may or may not become
significant to the study’s eventual recommendations.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Given the nature of mixed method design, this study utilizes two methods of data
collection: surveys (quantitative) and interviews (qualitative). Data are collected in a one-phase
(parallel concurrent) process and converge during analysis to generate rich, multi-dimensional
insights that answer the project’s two research questions. This section presents the proposed data
collection and analysis protocols.

65

Surveys
The study utilized a 19-item survey instrument to measure managerial performance in
relation to identified knowledge, motivation, and organization change readiness factors drawn
from the literature (Appendix A). Each item aligned with the assumed influences (Appendix C).
Surveys were distributed to the 94 identified stakeholders and included Likert-scale, multiple
choice, and ranking questions developed from the literature to assess the participants’ current
knowledge about organizational change readiness. The survey also asked participants to respond
to questions about their motivation with regard to change, and the organizational culture and
resources that support their change efforts. Participants voluntarily took the survey online on
their own unpaid time and were reminded to complete the survey by email once per week for
three weeks. Responses were anonymous and the data were de-identified for analysis.
Interviews
Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted to explore and validate the
assumed KMO factors that most influence stakeholder performance. Maximum variation
purposeful sampling was used to identify eight participants from within the study’s stakeholder
group. Participants were invited by phone and in-person conversation. Chapter One of the study
proposal was made available and most read it prior to agreeing to participate. The interview
guide (Appendix B) included 27 questions for person-to-person use during a sixty to ninety
minute session. Questions aligned closely with each of the assumed KMO influences (Appendix
C). All interviews took place within a three week period at neutral locations on both Campus
One and Campus Two. Table 5 shows the interview items for each of the study’s assumed KMO
influences.

66

Data Analysis
This study applies convergent mixed methods research, wherein collection of the data
occur simultaneously and then merge to deliver robust, mutually-sourced analysis that feeds
innovative solutions. Survey data were carefully cleaned before frequency and response rates
were calculated along with descriptive statistics. The researcher then figured item reliability for
survey scale data (using Corrected Item-Total Correlation) and drafted analytic memos to capture
early hunches and themes. Interview data were carefully transcribed, cleaned, and member
checked for accuracy. Raw transcripts then underwent an open coding process, wherein the
researcher additionally used reflective memos to capture detailed notes, speculative themes,
observations, and hunches. Following open coding, the researcher used axial coding to distill
relationships and categories. Analytic memos were drafted to further refine the coding structure.
Additionally, memos were compared with the constraints suggested by the study’s proposed
conceptual framework (Chapter Two). This iterative approach supported the refinement of
categories congruent with the data, the researcher’s particular epistemology, and the relevant
literature, particularly Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO gap analysis methodology.
The result is a careful set of themes that tether to the literature and embody the breadth
and depth of the full data set. Results and findings are fully explored in Chapter Four.
Qualitative Research Principles and Ethics
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Qualitative research is an interpretative process that opens up pathways of understanding
so that more is known at the end of an inquiry process than at its start. Meaningful, credible
research that stands to influence the field must be objective, reliable, and valid (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The construction of meaning through interpretative research demands criticality
67

and rigor of process to deliver rich, empirical findings that accurately reflect not the researcher’s
perspective, but rather the perspectives of the project’s particular stakeholder group (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). This section and the following Reliability and Validity and Ethics sections detail
the researcher’s intentional approach to acknowledge her role and potential bias within the
inquiry process and outlines specific design decisions that ensure the proposed study’s credibility
and veracity.
The study ensured quality design in several key ways. First, the decision to employ a
convergent mixed methods approach made the data all the more tenable as the use of surveys
added dimension and depth to the material culled from the purposeful interview process. This
triangulation, or the use of multiple measurement points, pursued validity with multiple sources
of data, cross-checking, and comparison (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Second, the extension of the KMO model (Clark & Estes, 2008) into the survey
anchored it all the more to the project’s methodological foundation and proposed conceptual
framework (Figure 1). This intentional tether from the proposed conceptual framework,
previously presented in Chapter Two and crafted from the literature, to the survey instrument and
the interview question set ensures a particular degree of internal validity and thus, credibility
(Maxwell, 2013). Finally, the researcher took specific steps to manage her position, including
rigorous reflexivity and in-process peer review.
Overall, the study pursues integrity and credibility through purposeful choices that allow
the strength of qualitative research to overcome its limitations. This effort enhances the
reliability and validity of the study’s findings and its recommendations for improved
performance toward the identified stakeholder goal. Of course, the opposite is equally true:
68

ruling out threats to validity increases the credibility of the study’s conclusions and it is to that
topic that this chapter now turns.
Reliability and Validity
The study pursues reliability and validity in its basic design constructs as outlined in the
previous sections of this chapter. This section discusses the distinct approach qualitative design
requires in order to ensure reliability and validity within the study’s eventual findings and
recommendations.
Reliability in qualitative research depends on whether or not peers who interact with the
study concur that its results and recommendations cohere with the data (Maxwell, 2013). This
study uses member checks with Amity University middle managers and feedback loops with the
researcher’s doctoral committee and Amity University’s Office of Institutional Effectiveness to
test the validity of the researcher’s conclusions and achieve reliability.
Distinct from reliability, validity depends on the extent to which the study’s findings can
be applied to other contexts (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Whereas quantitative design ensures
validity through the generalizability of aggregated data drawn from large, random samples to
other situations, qualitative research is more concerned with discrete depth than with what is
“generally true of many” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 254). The literature on qualitative inquiry
instead supports a focus on transferability, and this requires the researcher to provide sufficient
enough and descriptive enough data and analysis so as to facilitate rigorous and useful
applications in other contexts by other investigators. Merriam and Tisdell (2016), drawing from
Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) work on naturalistic inquiry say it this way, “The general lies in the
particular; that is, what we learn in a particular situation we can transfer or generalize to similar
situations subsequently encountered” (p. 255).
69

Thus far, this section offers consideration of threats to the study’s credibility, reliability,
and validity. In summary, the study design meets these potential threats through robust sampling
strategies that ensures a variation in the phenomena; triangulation through multimodal data
collection; rich data collection and analysis protocols thick with description; and intentional
respondent validation and member/peer checking and feedback loops that will occur throughout
the research process (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Ultimately, the integrity of the
study depends on this researcher’s commitment to produce a meaningful set of recommendations
that will benefit the field and contribute to the long term viability of nonprofit higher education.
The fulfillment of this commitment demands clear ethics, which is the final focus of this chapter.
Ethics
This qualitative study protects conscientious conduct before, during, and after data
collection through the careful and explicit application of ethical research principles. The research
plan meets the standards for approval set by the Institutional Review Board at both the
University of Southern California and Amity University (pseudonym). The study applies these
rules and guidelines to protect the rights and the welfare of its participants. This section outlines
the study’s approach to three ethical principles: informed consent and voluntary participation,
confidentiality, and the role of the researcher.
Ethical Principles
Informed consent, voluntary participation, and confidentiality. In order to make
informed decisions about participation in a study, people must understand the nature of the study
and the potential risks of involvement (Glesne, 2011; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Informed consent
means that subjects understand their participation is voluntary, conversations and the resulting
70

data will be kept confidential, and they are free to withdraw from the study at any time (Glesne,
2011).
This study provided the standards for informed consent both in writing prior to data
collection (both for interview and survey participants) and verbally throughout the interview
experience. Participants were informed of the protection afforded them by the University of
Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program. Throughout the interview process,
the researcher restated these standards and reminded participants of the inquiry-focused nature of
the dialogue (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Interview participants were asked to consent to audio
recording and made aware that it could be paused or stopped at any point during the interaction.
Participants were reminded they were free to end their interviews at any time without negative
consequences, at that time or in the future. Additionally, the researcher stressed that
participation, or the decision not to participate, was confidential and that at no time would
participants’ names be shared within the study or its related materials. The brief process for data
analysis was explained, and participants were assured that all recorded transcriptions would be
coded with pseudonyms for confidentiality. Participants knew that following transcription, audio
files would be destroyed and transcription data stored only in the researcher’s Google Drive
account associated with the University of Southern California.
The role of the researcher. The qualitative research goal for this study is to discover as
much as possible about the stated research questions. The researcher is key to this goal and
central to the study’s design. In qualitative research, the researcher, who is motivated by her
particular worldview, interests, and attributes, is the primary instrument for inquiry. Her biases
shape data collection, analysis, and, ultimately the study’s recommendations (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). In this study, the researcher will assume that Amity University ultimately wants to
71

become change ready and desires to achieve a sustainable future. It is also assumed that survey
respondents and interview subjects will be authentic and candid. Other inherent biases include
the fact that the researcher is part of the Amity University community and a key member of the
senior leadership team. This position and its related influence create a potentially thorny ethical
dilemma. The solution requires vigilant reflexivity, which ultimately yields a more valid and
credible study (Glesne, 2011).
Reflexivity
Throughout this study, the researcher engaged in particularly high levels of reflexivity
about her positional authority and its potential impact on the relational dynamic with
participants, which could potentially and unwittingly shape data collection and analysis.
Specifically, the researcher considered the influence that her authority or perceived power could
exert on an individual’s decision to participate as well as the degree to which participants would
trust the promise of confidentiality. The researcher shared the transcribed interviews with
subjects to ensure accuracy, demonstrate that no names were used, and build ongoing trust with
participants. Additionally, to manage awareness of the various roles she may feel compelled to
play during the research process, the researcher engaged in an ongoing reflexive process.
Reflective memos were conscientiously composed following each interview session. In these, the
researcher noted comments and interactions that seemed potentially influenced by her role. She
also mapped those moments of extreme candor, when the interview participant seemed almost to
have forgotten her role as a fellow employee. Given all of the potential sources for bias and to
ensure an ethically sound study, the researcher consistently performed the principles of
confidentiality, voluntary participation, thoroughly informed consent, and researcher reflexivity
in each interaction.
72

Limitations and Delimitations
The findings of the proposed study will be constrained by various limitations, factors
outside of the researcher’s control, and delimitations, factors that result from the researcher’s
design choices.
Limitations
• Restructuring within the University in late summer and the communication, or
perceived lack thereof, around these decisions impacts middle manager
perceptions. Given that these structural changes are likely to have occurred
immediately before data collection, it is important to note the potential influence
on the data.
• The data will depend on the voluntary veracity of those interviewed.
• The data will depend on the willingness of middle managers to participate in the
survey, which is a decision influenced by their overall cultural perceptions within
the University.
Delimitations
• The researcher is the primary interviewer/investigator, and functions in a senior
leadership capacity, which may influence how data are communicated during
interview sessions.
• The interview sample is nonrandom and purposefully chosen, which may limit
overall variation.
• Data will be collected in a relatively brief timeframe, which truncates the
possibility for extensive follow-up if necessary.
73

• Data will only be collected from the identified stakeholder group and do not
include other perspectives.
• The planned study is an innovative study and thus data will not be reflective of
results from potential performance improvements.

74

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
This innovation study analyzes the performance gaps that must be closed in order to
establish organizational change readiness at Amity University (pseudonym) through training that
ensures academic and operational managers develop the necessary dynamic managerial
capabilities—that is the knowledge, values, and behaviors—to effectuate change in the
organization. Application of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework suggests how
knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) factors influence managerial performance,
while qualitative exploration of these factors yields data that facilitate deeper analysis of their
influence. This chapter reviews the study participants and outlines from the data the results and
findings that answer the study’s central questions:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that influence Middle
Managers at Amity University to embrace and effectuate change in their organization?
2. What are the recommendations for innovative organizational practice in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources that will enable Middle Managers to
demonstrate these attributes?
A qualitative survey and semi-structured, person-to-person interviews—simultaneously
conducted over a three-week period—yield data from an identified population of 94 Amity
University middle managers. In total, these data include results from 59 managers who
completed a 19-item survey (response rate of 62.76%), and eight managers, each of whom
engaged in 60-minute interviews. The following section presents these participants in more
detail.

75

Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group of focus for this study is operations and academic middle
managers at Amity University. The study population consists of 94 employees. The sampling
strategy (detailed in Chapter Three) ensures valid representation of the population both in the
survey and interview data. The participation results follow below.
Interview Participants
This study applied a maximum variation sampling strategy to identify interview subjects
from the target population. Eight middle managers were interviewed and met the sampling
criteria detailed in Chapter Three. The criteria goals were: (1) to reflect the 65% to 35%
academic to operations classification balance of the institution as a whole, (2) to reflect the
geographic balance of the institution as a whole, six managers based on Campus 1 and two based
at Campus 2; (3) to display an even split of those on the President’s Expanded Leadership team;
and (4) to include at least one manager from each campus who began their work before the 2013
merger. Table 5 displays the interview participants (pseudonyms) by criteria.
Table 5
Interview Sample by Criteria
Participant Classification Campus 1 Campus 2 ELT Member Pre-Merge
Martin Academic X X X
Don Operations X
Ronnie Operations X
Kendra Academic X
Deb Academic X X
Vince Academic X X X
Jana Academic X X
Darrell Operations X X
76

Survey Participants
The survey was sent by email to 94 academic and operational middle managers at Amity
University, whose titles met the criteria for inclusion. Of those, 59 responded during a three-
week period. The study sought to develop a sample representative of its target population. The
goal was to ensure at least 20% of each of the identified subgroups participated: hiring
classification (academic or operations), geographic campus (Campus 1, Campus 2), and tenure
pre/post the 2013 acquisition of Campus 2 by Campus 1 (in management seven years or less, or
more than 7 years). Figure 2, 3, and 4 illustrate percentages of participation.
The data show that 33.9% of survey respondents classified as academic managers, while
66.1% identified as operations.

Figure 2. Survey participants by hiring classification (N=59).
With respect to campus location, 71.19% of participants were based at Campus 1 and
23.73 at Campus 2. 5.08% percent (3 responses) identified with the Online Campus, which is
geographically located on Campus 1. This option was presented to survey participants because it
is how managers working in that geography prefer to be designated.
77

Figure 3. Survey participants by campus location (N = 59).
The study ensured representation of middle managers who held their management
positions prior to the 2013 campus merger. Among participants, 33.9% were managers more than
7 years, thus holding their roles prior to the acquisition of Campus 2 by Campus 1. 66.1% were
managers seven years or less.

Figure 4. Survey participants by tenure (more than 7 years, pre-merger) (N = 59).

78

Determination of Assets and Needs
A thorough review of the literature on change readiness and the Clark and Estes (2008)
gap analysis framework guide this study and shape its animating framework. The conceptual
framework (Chapter Two) draws from existing empirical and theoretical research and suggests
how the Clark & Estes (2008) KMO factors interact to achieve change efficacy and readiness
among middle managers at Amity University. The framework also guides data collection and its
analysis. Proper analysis allows for an accurate diagnosis of each assumed KMO influence to
determine whether the influence is an asset to be leveraged or a need to be solved.
This study uses empirical findings from surveys and interviews to assess whether
assumed influences are assets, needs, or a hybrid of both. The study’s convergent mixed methods
design (Chapter Three) facilitates data collection using different sampling methods within the
same population. This approach ensures a multidimensional perspective from which valid,
cohesive conclusions are drawn. The presentation of the findings intertwine survey and interview
data, toggling between each, which reinforces how each data set informs and supports the
conclusions drawn from the other.
More than quantitative surveys, which are generally straightforward in their
interpretation, the use of interviews to diagnose performance needs requires careful, concise, and
comprehensive data collection, checking, and a commitment to engage in reflective practice and
frequent member checking. Data are complete when enough has been gathered to allow a
consistent picture to emerge (Clark & Estes, 2008). Triangulation of interview data through
multiple investigation methods increases the reliability and validity of the results and ensures
accuracy of the diagnosis. This is essential to craft recommendations that meaningfully solve
performance problems.
79

In this study, triangulation occurred both as interview and survey data were collected and
as these data converged. With respect to interviews, eight managers were selected using
maximum variation sampling. As detailed in the methodology sections of Chapter Three, during
the interview process the researcher engaged in consistent reflective practice and member
checking to validate her data and ascertain saturation. It was evident that the interviews offered a
complete picture when data revealed exceptional alignment and near perfect consistency across
responses, even across varied participants. Taken alongside the survey data, which were
concurrently collected and then converged with the interview data, a cohesive picture emerged
relative to the findings. Together, these data sets delineated the degree to which each KMO
influence could be defined as an asset, a need, or, in a few cases, a blend of the two.
The criteria applied to the data to define an influence as an asset or a need were based on
the recommendations from Clark and Estes (2008). With respect to the interview data, an
influence was marked as a knowledge gap when the majority of participants could not convey
factual understanding or could not explain how to achieve a given goal or task. Motivation
influences were identified as needs when participants conveyed avoidance, disagreement,
refusal, or delay when responding to questions about motivation and their work. Finally,
organizational causes were identified as needs when participants explicitly mentioned process
and procedure concerns, resource challenges, or cultural practices that inhibited goal
achievement. Survey data were analyzed for general majority performance. Where that was
lacking, the influence was determined to be a need. When multiple findings were discovered for
a given influence, with some manifesting as an asset and some as a need, the influence as a
whole was identified as a need.

80

Results and Findings
The following sections present the results of the survey and the interviews in relation to
the study’s central question: What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that
influence Middle Managers at Amity University to embrace and effectuate change in their
organization? The assumed KMO influences, identified in Chapter Two, frame the presentation
of the findings. The chapter concludes with a summary of the influences and related findings,
which sets up consideration of the study’s second question: What are the recommendations for
innovative organizational practice in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
resources that will enable middle managers to demonstrate these attributes? Chapter Five
addresses this second question.
Knowledge Influences toward Change Readiness
Change readiness is a unique capacity within an organization. It is the total sum of
organizational knowledge, capabilities, skillfulness, culture, and collective mindset, or will, in
relation to change. Readiness forms a preceding condition that enables the organization to
adroitly deploy and sustainably maintain robust competitive advantage within a given market. As
Chapter Two explores, management is the central, facilitating variable of these change-necessary
parts. The first factor that managers must possess is the requisite factual, conceptual, and
procedural knowledge that can be applied, or transferred, to solve novel, unexpected problems
(Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Carpenter, 2012; Clark & Estes, 2008). The survey and interview data
reveal important findings about the existing knowledge needs and assets at Amity University that
are essential to performance. This section presents these findings.

81

Factual Knowledge
The data reveal two findings central to the influence of factual knowledge on middle
manager performance at Amity University. The first is an asset, while the second a need. Thus
the requisite factual knowledge influence: Managers need to know the performance gaps
between where the organization is and where it needs to be, and the change capabilities required
to close the gap represents a need that must be solved.
Finding One: Individual knowledge about performance goals facilitates managerial
behaviors that influence organizational readiness. The findings illustrate that managers who
are adept at describing clear and measurable department-level performance goals frequently
communicate about the future—that is, where the organization is, where it is going, and why the
goal is necessary—when introducing change to their employees. In this way, as discussed in
Chapter Two, factual knowledge influences organizational readiness (Holt et. al, 2007; Van de
Ven & Poole, 1995). This finding is an asset that will benefit Amity University in its
performance achievement.
Performance goal knowledge. First, the findings show that managers demonstrate goal-
related factual knowledge in three ways: they know a performance goal, they accurately define a
performance goal, and they articulate progress toward the identified goal. Figure 5 illustrates that
84.75% of respondents claim performance goal factual knowledge, when asked “I know the
performance goals for my department.”
82

Figure 5. Survey responses, “I know the performance goals for my department.” (N=59).
Additionally, a majority of participants identified Clark and Estes (2008) components of
an effective goal (who, what, when, how much). As shown in Figure 6, a majority of managers
identified two of the four primary characteristics that define effective performance goals.

Figure 6. Performance goal component responses (N = 59).
83

Interview participants demonstrated goal-related factual knowledge when explaining their
performance progress. Those who identified specific and properly constructed performance goals
consistently cited facts and figures in their responses related to progress. Managers with less
defined goals evidenced a less defined sense of progress. Thus, participants proved adept not
only at naming goals, but adept at describing clear and measurable performance goals. The
second half of this factual knowledge finding—that individual knowledge about performance
goals facilitates behaviors that influence organizational readiness—depends on this premise.
A (factual) future focus. As Chapter Two suggests, managers use factual knowledge to
influence change in a desired direction (Holt et al., 2007). This positions factual knowledge as
critical to the creation of change readiness. The findings support this theory. Managers who
possess clarity around their performance goals frequently communicated about the future when
introducing change to their employees. Of those who agreed or strongly agreed that they know
their departments’ goals (N=50), 76% said that they describe routinely to their employees where
the organization is, where it is going, and why the goal is appropriate. When presented with a
specific change event, 47 out of the 50 identified that they use these same types of messages to
manage change success. Thus, the survey findings support that knowledge, both at the individual
level and about the organization as a whole, shapes manager perception about the organization
and motivates change readiness.
Interviews told a similar story. Ronnie (a pseudonym), for example, evidenced both
specific knowledge about his own performance goals and a strong perspective about the
university’s future as a direct result of those goals. When asked a follow-up question, “How does
that [sense of where the organization aims to be] compare with where the university is today,” he
responded:
84

We have a lot of work to do; not that it's not doable. I'm not one to say it can’t be done.
And there are some fundamental things that will have to happen …I believe any kind of
long-term change is a marathon. It is not a sprint. It doesn’t happen, you know overnight,
and the key is in the short run, in the year one, year two get the short wins and during that
time work on making the culture.
This articulation of a change ready attitude displays the interplay between knowledge and
readiness, and follows the change readiness literature, which suggests that precise knowledge
about performance gaps underlies change readiness (Armenakis, et al., 1993; Cunningham, et al.,
2002; Holt et al., 2007). The research further supports that readiness is deepened when leaders
communicate facts relative to the perceived gap and the organization’s capacity to close the gap
(Armenakis, et al., 1993; Jones et al, 2005). Thus, factual knowledge proves fundamental to the
achievement of a change ready culture. Of interest, the researcher did not challenge the veracity
of participant beliefs about the university’s five-to-ten year plan. Certainly, this is important and
will be discussed in following sections of this analysis. With respect to factual knowledge,
however, the findings show that its possession (“I know the performance goals of my
department”) provides managers with a sense about the organization’s future that they extend to
their employees and this influence is an important onboarding toward greater overall
organizational readiness.
Finding Two: Managers recognize the need to persuade and ally people toward
change opportunities, but lack complete knowledge of the change capabilities required to
close performance gaps. While Amity University managers proved able to identify performance
goals and gaps, survey and interview data reveal underdeveloped knowledge about the change
capabilities necessary to close those gaps. Given the literature’s emphasis on the need to develop,
85

possess, and use generic and domain-specific dynamic change capabilities to achieve and sustain
organizational change readiness (Helfat et al., 2007; Wang & Ahmed, 2007; Zollo & Winter,
2002), and in particular the higher order capabilities such as sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring
(Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009; Helfat et al., 2007; Teece et al., 1997; Teece, 2014; Teece &
Pisano, 1998), this finding represents an important gap that must be prioritized to achieve
meaningful performance innovation.
The findings evidence incomplete knowledge among managers about change capabilities.
Table 6 represents survey responses to an item that invited managers to correctly identify the
capabilities necessary to manage change. Out of 59 respondents, only nine correctly identified all
five of the appropriate capabilities. While four of the correct items garnered 50% or more of total
manager response, items related to sensing and seizing capabilities proved less known.
Table 6
Manager Knowledge of Capabilities to Close Performance Gaps (N=59)
Item Choice Count
Accurately recognize opportunities in the university environment.* 91.52% 54
Give complete attention to the environment to sense new
opportunities.* (Sensing)
59.32% 35
Effectively maintain existing performance in order to protect the status
quo.
23.72% 14
Focus thinking and block distractions in order to seize opportunities.*
(Seizing)
45.76% 27
Use language and non-verbal behavior to convey information, persuade,
and motivate others.*
69.49% 41
Inspire cooperation among members of an organization* 100% 59
Intentionally safeguard my department to ensure its long term viability. 16.94% 10
Note. Asterisk = correct capabilities.
86

Frequency of responses among interview participants aligned with the survey data.
Managers commonly cited strategies such as: use of language to persuade and mobilize, the
importance of inspiring cooperation, and a general ability to accurately identify change
opportunities. However, these strategies were identified as isolated behaviors. Managers did not
identify multiple strategies, but discussed particular, singular strategies deployed over and over
in their attempts to achieve performance improvement. They generally placed these into a larger
theme of “getting people on board” or securing “buy-in.” An example is that of Martin, who
identified a performance goal to improve assessment of the institution’s core curriculum, over
which he had significant influence. However, he said that strong faculty resistance to change
prevented its achievement. When asked to explain the strategies he used to close the gap, Martin
said:
“[I touted] the benefit of the end product. I also told faculty and particularly the chairs,
‘these set of 6 classes, this is our baby; our thing. This is where we are going to make our
mark. … If we want to influence students, particularly with our mission it is going to be
in these six classes. So, we need to be able to demonstrate that. Assessment is how we do
that.’”
Martin’s response was illustrative of other interviews. Certainly, he knew some of the
change capabilities necessary to bridge performance gaps. However, the data show that Martin
and other managers failed to demonstrate a complete knowledge of change capabilities,
specifically higher-order, dynamic capabilities that could be used to effectively create change
readiness. Thus, the interview data along with the survey data suggest this knowledge to be
vastly under developed

87

Conceptual Knowledge
The data reveal a key finding that is an important need relative to the influence of
conceptual knowledge on middle manager performance at Amity University: Managers must
know the degrees of both employee and organizational change readiness, commitment to change,
and urgency, and the ways that these factors interleave to intensify readiness.
Finding: Managers know that employees think differently about change, but do not
appreciate the interaction between individual and organizational change readiness factors.
The findings illustrate that although managers recognize differences in change readiness among
employees, they lack comprehensive conceptual knowledge about the relationship between
individual and organizational readiness factors. As Chapter Two explores, such conceptual
knowledge enables the successful application of complex change models that demand rich
understanding of the dynamic between individual and contextual (organizational) factors (Holt et
al., 2007; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Thus, the data evidence a gap in
performance that must be met when considering recommendations for innovative practice.
Individual influence on team readiness. First, the findings show that managers
recognized the differences that exist between individual employees and their personal levels of
readiness. In interviews, managers were asked to assign a “change temperature” to their
departments’ change culture. Most gave their departments a mid-level score, usually between 40-
60 degrees. As a follow-up, each was asked, “Are there individuals within your department who
would register a different temperature than the group? Why do you think that might be?” To a
one, managers identified specific individuals whose levels of change readiness contrasted
negatively with the department and thus pulled down the group’s temperature. Of note, no
manager identified an individual whose personal temperature was higher than that of the team.
88

Instead, managers used words like resistant, unwilling, stuck, disinterested, and sabotage to
describe the beliefs and behaviors of these change adverse employees. Clearly, the data evidence
that managers understand the detrimental impact that individuals can exert within a team or
organization. But do they embrace the potential positive impact?
Individual vs organizational readiness factors. Similarly, the survey findings show that
middle managers perceive individual factors as generally more influential on overall change
readiness. Table 7 presents the degree to which—using a sliding scale 0-100—managers
perceive certain factors to influence overall readiness. Survey participants did not know which
factors were individual (I), organizational (O), or blended (B). Yet, the four individual factors
rank at the top by mean score, while the organizational factors rank at the bottom. Generally,
managers scored the factors similarly, but this modest imbalance indicates a gap in their
conceptual understanding about how individual and organizational factors interleave, arranging
themselves one upon the other, to advance readiness.
Table 7
Perceived Factor Influence on Change Readiness
Factor Type Mean Std Dev
Individual employees believe that a specific change is the
right one for the situation.
I 67.41 24.53
Individual employees are certain that leaders are committed
to the change (it’s not a passing fad).
I 70.62 27.70
Individual employees believe that a change can be
accomplished.
I 69.42 24.34
Individual employees are confident that a change is
beneficial.
I 69.53 25.12
Employees share a collective trust that leaders will act in
the best interest of the organization’s stakeholders.
B 73.03 23.81

89

Table 7 continued
The organization has a shared confidence that change can
be accomplished.
B 68.69 23.07
There is agreement in the organization about the need for
change.
B 64.93 21.55
There is widespread, shared clarity about the differences
between the current state and a more desirable state.
O 64.08 23.88
The organization offers both sufficient resources and an
encouraging environment to support implementation.
O 63.68 26.84
The organization shares a set of clearly articulated goals
and objectives that are supported by a detailed
implementation plan defining roles and system to measure
progress.
O 60.61 28.19
Note. I = individual, O = organization, B = blended.
Remove or reshape. Of particular interest, the frequency of responses in which managers
suggested removal, and not reshaping, of change resistant employees further evidences
conceptual knowledge gaps about the relationship that exists between individual and
organizational readiness factors. Throughout the interviews, managers readily articulated
personal, individual factors as key to their own change readiness. Yet, when commenting on
change resistant employees, none suggested cultivating individual factors as a way to overcome
resistance. Rather, the data show that managers failed to identify the dynamic between
organizational and individual readiness as part of the equation.
For example, a common factor that managers referenced as particularly influential to
their own individual readiness was personal alignment to the university’s mission. In his
interview, Martin spoke frequently about how missional motivation shaped his commitment to
institutional change. However, he compartmentalized this individual influence, sharing at one
point, “I’m motivated by the mission; I think it’s what … I mean, if I am only thinking about
myself, it’s really what drives it [change readiness]: belief in the value of that; of making a
90

difference.” Thus, although mission motivated Martin on a personal level, he did not similarly
conceptualize how that same factor might drive organizational change readiness in others.
Rather, when asked to describe how an individual’s personal readiness for change worked with
the organization’s readiness, Martin said:
Well, certainly if somebody is resistant to change, they will resist what the organization
does. Maybe not overtly; but they may not be as supportive or go out of their way to
think about things they can do differently… So, if there are those people who are slow to
change, or don’t want to change, it’s hard to get them to support change.
Certainly, such a response is warranted, but when asked the follow-up, “How do you as a leader
work at that; how do you bring them along?” Martin responded, “One clear example is you
replace a person in a leadership role with somebody else. … I think that’s a way to send a
message, but also to kind of make those departments perform better, whether it is change related
or not.”
This theme of removal rather than rehabilitation was typical across the interview data.
When participants spoke about self, they articulated the importance of individual readiness, but
they did not articulate, even when prompted that the organization through its managerial
leadership could influence such readiness. Deb said it this way, “I think the people who can stay
or maintain … [buy] into the mission.” Here, again, the manager overlooked that the interaction
between the individual “buy-in” and the organization is not a one-way interaction, but rather a
complex conceptual dynamic that requires managers possess adequate factual, conceptual, and
procedural knowledge. It is to the procedural set of factors the chapter now turns.

91

Procedural Knowledge
The data support a significant finding that is an important need relative to the influence of
procedural knowledge on middle manager performance at Amity University: Managers need to
know how to perform the behaviors that most influence the factors that create change readiness
within individuals and teams.
Finding: Procedural knowledge gaps result in inconsistent, transactional
performance of the behaviors most necessary to the creation of change readiness. The data
reveal that managers possess general knowledge about how to create change readiness within
individuals and teams, but lack comprehensive procedural capabilities. When presented with
simple change scenarios, most managers identified at least one appropriate procedural behavior,
but few demonstrated complete procedural knowledge. This gap matters because it reduces
procedures to transactional behaviors, which do not best develop change readiness. Rather,
cohesive, transformational effort that is deployed consistently, dramatically, and repeatedly
drives its creation (Dasborough et al., 2015; Herold et al., 2008; Nordin, 2011; Vakola, 2014).
Transformational performance, then, depends in part on robust procedural competence.
Consider the results of survey respondents to this prompt:
Higher education is a changing industry. After much discussion, university leaders
announce that the university intends to dramatically scale its efforts in new education
markets and will increase new programs in the coming year. Your department will have
new expectations to meet in the development of these programs, their execution, and their
success. What actions will you take to effectively manage your team to succeed in light
of the changes? (Mark all that apply)
92

Table 8 displays that managers possess a general sense of appropriate behavior. Given the
study’s conceptual bias toward the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis method, it is significant
that 55 out of 59 item respondents (93.22%) accurately identified communication of the
performance gap as a necessary procedural behavior. However, most managers did not
accurately identify all correct behaviors. While 30 managers correctly identified all of the
procedural steps, only six both correctly selected appropriate behaviors, while leaving
inappropriate choices unmarked. Such inconsistent procedural knowledge limits managerial
effectiveness and represents a need that demands innovative solutions.
Table 8
Procedural Knowledge Influences on Readiness
Item % Count
I will take the primary role to develop the tactics and strategies
our department will use to achieve success.
74.58% 44
I will more intentionally develop my expertise within my field.* 59.32% 35
I will identify and incorporate external information that adds
credibility to messages that I communicate about university
change.*
72.88% 43
I will ensure my department knows its weaknesses and stress
them often to motivate behavior.
10.17% 6
I will communicate where the organization is currently, where it
wants to be, and why that goal is appropriate.*
93.22% 55
Note. * indicates incorrect response.
Creating a balance of readiness: individual and team. The data further show a
procedural tendency among managers to trend toward their own self-reliance. Just as the
conceptual findings discussed in the previous section revealed the need for managers to better
understand the dynamic between organizational and individual readiness, a similar gap occurs in
managers’ procedural knowledge. In this case, both the survey and interview data demonstrate
93

that managers favor procedural behaviors directed at teams not individuals, even as they
evidence a consistent trust in their own, personal capabilities. In the survey, 44 managers
incorrectly selected “I will take the primary role to develop the tactics and strategies our
department will use to achieve success.” Similarly, during interviews managers were asked a
series of questions about their procedural knowledge. They described their efforts with words
and phrases such as: try to reason, persuade, listen, energize, and gain buy-in, and effectively
conveyed their understanding of communication and influence strategies to create readiness.
However, managers did not use pronouns we or us, but rather I or me, even when describing their
efforts in team settings. Additionally, the dominant contexts that managers referenced in their
responses included either independent work (by themselves alone) or their work managing larger
team settings, where participants were largely passive. In fact, only one manager explained how
he cultivated readiness with individual employees, apart from group contexts. Survey
respondents favored similar procedural behaviors. Figure 7 depicts three behaviors managers
were least likely to perform most of the time or always. These include (1) constructing
opportunities for people to actively participate in change; (2) delivering meaningful messages
about change one-to-one with their employees; and (3) identifying and incorporating external
information to add credibility to change messages.

94

Figure 7. Survey responses, frequency of managerial change behaviors.
Motivation Influences toward Change Readiness
Change readiness emerges not just from the possession of dynamic capabilities and the
necessary knowledge related to its creation, but from the use of these concepts and capabilities.
Motivation is the catalyst for use. It is at once a process, a mindset, and a belief that produces
persistent performance (Rueda, 2011). With respect to change readiness, motivation is the
fundamental driver. Knowledge influences change, but readiness depends on the belief that
change is needed, worthwhile, and possible (Armenakis et al., 1993; Cunningham et al., 2002;
Eccles, 2006). Because motivation comes from within systems, managers once again take central
stage with regard to this critical set of factors. This section presents the results and findings
drawn from the study’s survey and interview data that identify the needs and assets related to
motivation among Amity University middle managers.
Cost Value
The data reveal three findings central to the influence of cost value motivation on middle
manager performance at Amity University. As the literature suggests, cost value significantly
95

influences change readiness as well as an individual’s overall organizational commitment
(Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Holt, 2007; Jones et al., 2005). The first two findings are assets,
while the second represents a need. Thus the requisite motivational influence: Managers need to
believe that the effort, emotion, and energy of change are worth the cost represents a need that
the university must address to achieve the performance goal.
Finding One: Managers reflect moderate belief that the value of change is worth the
cost. First, the data support that managers generally believe the effort, emotion, and energy
change requires are worth the cost. 62.06% of managers agreed or strongly agreed that
“University-level change is generally worth the cost (effort, emotion, energy).” Table 9 displays
mean cost value scores on a 5-point scale for managers’ perceived personal and organizational
cost value for change. On the whole, these findings represent a modest asset for the university as
readiness requires a high change valence (value cost). However, cost value can be understood
both at the personal level and the organizational level. With this duality in mind, the data suggest
important gaps and additional assets, namely that while there is strength in individual cost value,
there is a gap that must be addressed with respect to cost value as it is perceived at an
organizational level. Each is central to performance innovation.
Table 9
Perceived Change Valence: Individual and Organizational Levels

All
(N = 59)
Campus 1
(N=42)
Campus 2
(N = 14)
Item Mean Std
Dev.
Mean Std
Dev.
Mean Std
Dev.
Personally Beneficial

Change at the university
benefits me personally.
3.56 .85 3.5 .88 3.5 .73
96

Table 9 continued
In the long run, I feel it is
generally worthwhile for me
when the organization
adopts changes.
3.85 .71 3.79 .74 4 .65
Generally, changes make my
job easier.
2.8 .86 2.67 .84 3.2 .86
Often, the effort required to
implement change at the
university is small compared
to the benefits I see from it.
3.10 1.02 3.2 .99 2.7 .56
Organizationally Beneficial
University-level change is
generally worth the cost
(effort, emotion, energy).
3.71 .67 3.69 .71 3.79 .56
I think that generally our
organization benefits from
change.
4.09 .63 4.14 .52 4.07 .67
When we adopt changes,
we are usually better
equipped to meet students’
needs.
3.95 .83 3.95 .84 3.93 .88
University changes
generally match the
priorities of our mission.
3.91 .82 3.86 .80 4.07 .88
Finding Two: Managers view change as less personally beneficial than
organizationally beneficial. While managers reflected moderately positive value for change, the
data presented in Table 9 reveal important differences between their perceptions of its personal
cost value and organizational cost value. Slight variance in the mean scores exists between
managers based at Campus 1 as compared to Campus 2, which is intriguing given the acquisition
of Campus 2 in recent years. While not the specific focus of this study, the differences in change
related motivation as mediated by the acquisition warrant future study. On the whole, managers
scored organizational benefits high. However, the closer the item tied to their personal, daily
97

work, the lower the mean score and the wider the variance. This subtle difference is important
because the literature identifies personal and organizational valence as two of five leading
readiness factors that motivate change, but suggests it is the degree of perceived personal cost
value that most influences belief and behavior (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Holt et al., 2007;
Jones et al., 2005). Thus, this difference represents a subtle, but critical performance gap that
must be addressed. Additional findings from the motivation data may suggest how.
Finding Three: Individual change valence is most evident within managers who
attach their personal worldview to the organization’s purpose. In order to drive behavioral
change readiness, motivation must be personal, activating, energizing, and directed (Rueda,
2011). Throughout the interviews, participants spoke frequently about the relationship between
their values and the University’s mission. Often, mission-focused organizations explain this
dynamic as mission fit. The assumption is that the organizational mission drives motivation. The
data tell a different story, however. Amity University managers are not so much motivated by the
mission as they motivate their behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs toward the mission. Including
their behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs about change.
Managers consistently evidenced personal change valence. While they frequently used
the words needed and necessary with the word scary when describing their feelings about change
at the university, when invited to elaborate, “What motivates you to embrace the idea that change
is needed” without exception, managers described ways that their personal values attached to the
organization’s espoused mission. It was this tether that mediated the degree of personal valence.
Deb shared:
One of my top five [strengths] is significance … It's really what motivates me in terms of
leaving a legacy, inspiring others. …I'm not the achiever that has endless stamina. I have
98

my limits. But I have to buy into something bigger to make my work feel worthwhile.
And because it encompasses who I am, it's a lot easier to tackle the days that are harder
than others.
Martin’s response followed a similar line:
I believe that universities need to make a difference generally; in their communities and,
when you have a Christian university, I think that is even more important. The whole
worldview [of this University]? Making sure that gets represented in the marketplace of
ideas? It’s energizing and motivating to me, even in those times when I look around and
hear about other universities closing and see the challenges … I’m still optimistic.
Kendra extended the importance of personal value alignment to the team. She suggested
that a transformational motivation creates easier opportunities to move her staff through
transactional change:
It's so important to find somebody who's going to be the right fit. The rest of the stuff, the
day-to-day? That can be trained; people can learn that quickly. But, if they're here
because this is their family … and [they] believe in giving our students an educational
environment like that, everything else kind of falls into place.
The data overwhelmingly support this key theme of a personal value match that creates a
transformational motivation to push through transactional change. Over and over, the data show
that change valence is strongest within individuals who initiate a vibrant connection with the
organization’s mission, born out of a perceived alignment between the organization and their
particular, personal value set. This finding is among the most essential motivation factors
influencing manager performance and offers a compelling asset from which recommendations
will flow.
99

Efficacy
As Chapter Two presents, the heart of readiness is efficacy. The literature supports that
an organization’s overall readiness relies on the creation of individual and collective cognition,
beliefs, and attitudes that change is possible (Armenakis, et al., 1993). The data support one key
finding and a secondary finding of interest relative to the motivational influence of efficacy at
Amity University: Managers must believe in their individual and in the organization’s collective
competence to achieve change goals. This finding is critical to the recommendations for
innovative practice that will improve, achieve, and sustain middle manager performance.
Finding: Managers exhibit high degrees of individual efficacy, but low degrees of
collective efficacy. When asked to describe one of the biggest changes that the university has yet
to make and assess, “can it be done,” managers expressed varying degrees of belief that difficult
change is possible. As with each of the motivation factors, the data support findings both at the
individual and organizational levels.
Collective vs. individual efficacy. Efficacy carries multiple dimensions. While managers
expressed overall individual change confidence, their individual efficacy is higher than their
perceptions about the organization’s collective efficacy. This finding is important given the
significant mediating role managers play in shaping organizational change capacity (Adner et al.,
2003; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Judge & Blocker, 2008; Soparnot, 2011; Teece et al., 1997).
Managers’ beliefs and perceptions form the crucible within which readiness is forged. Thus,
what they believe about the organization’s collective capacity matters.
Generally, managers were more inclined to agree with statements related to their personal
capacity for change (self-efficacy) than with statements about the organization’s capacity for
change (collective efficacy). Survey data show that 14% of managers strongly disagreed or
100

disagreed with the statement, “I am confident that our organization can deal effectively with
change.” Broadened to include those who neither agreed or disagreed or only somewhat agreed,
that percentage jumped to 51%. Conversely, when asked about their personal confidence (My
past experiences make me confident that I can achieve our change goals.), 48% agreed or
strongly agreed. These data reveal a critical need. Collective efficacy is key motivational factor
in the achievement of change readiness (Bandura, 2000). Managers must believe in both their
individual and the collective capability to achieve change goals. As such, these findings will
substantively shape Chapter Five’s recommendations.
Finding Two: Managers perceptions of collective efficacy were mediated by their
views of senior leadership. Interview data show that managers’ observations of and beliefs
about senior leaders’ decision making inform perceptions about collective efficacy. When
discussing the organization’s capacity to accomplish future change, managers frequently
suggested that organizational change capacity depended most on the individual will and
influence of senior leadership. Deb shared the example of a significant as yet unaccomplished
change involving course delivery flexibility between traditional programs and post traditional
programs. Her response echoed themes of her fellow managers. “Could we do it? I think we can
do it. Will we?” She paused for several moments and continued:
I think we have bright people. We’re very capable. I think it is power struggles. It is
departments. It’s ‘well that’s ours and we don't want to work for you and I don't like …’
It is petty things and people who don't, who aren't willing, to see the bigger picture.
That's where I think it comes back to [senior] leadership to say ‘Knock it off. We're doing
it. Get on board or not,” and then, ‘I'll tell you what's going to happen if you’re not.’ But
that’s where the indecision comes and we keep batting it all around. And you've got
101

people at a grassroots level trying to facilitate [change] and it keeps hitting the same
barriers.
Ronnie likened this decision making will to how people decide to get out of bed in the morning.
“We’re still lying down,” he explained referring broadly to the university. “The things that need
to happen aren’t beyond happening. It’s just decision. What needs to happen is simple, but not
easy. Some specific things have to happen [to challenge] past practices, challenge our own
historical way of [doing] things. So, we need to rock and we need to get up.” This theme of
leadership authority and influence emerges again in the organizational influence survey and
interview data and will be explored more deeply later in the chapter.
Goal Orientation
Drawing once more from Rueda’s (2011) four hallmarks of motivation—that it be
personal, activating, energizing, and directed—the influence of goal orientation on performance
cannot be overlooked. Indeed, the findings support this factor’s significant influence. The data
reveal three findings, one that is a need and two that are assets. However, applying the study’s
criteria for determining whether an influence represents an asset or a need, the requisite
motivational influence: Managers should work toward strategic change mastery represents a
need that must be solved.
Finding One: Individual awareness of the need for change motivates manager
readiness more than organizational programs, messages, or mandates to pursue change
mastery. The data show that individual belief in the need for change catalyzes a mastery-
orientation more than does organization-led change programs or messages. Throughout the
interviews, managers easily identified examples of change activated not because of a university
mandate, strategic plan, or performance expectation, but from their own initiative and belief that
102

change was necessary. For example, when discussing his leadership decision to expedite a
significant change, Martin said, “In some ways, that is a philosophy I have; you just do it and
you get something done and then you make it better as you go forward.” While Kendra said:
One of the first projects that I initiated when I [took on this role] was moving to an
electronic file review process. Prior to that we had always printed every [document], put
it in campus mail, and sent it to the [appropriate next step]. They would get it, eventually
and make the decision, maybe it would get stuck under some things on their desks, so I
would have to tell students, ‘you will maybe hear from us once your file is complete in
about 2 weeks.’ I was like, that’s not good enough.
Given the literature’s emphasis on transformational mastery-orientation as more effective
in the creation of readiness than a transactional, performance-orientation, this finding appears to
be a key asset for the university (Gelaidan, et al., 2018; Herold, et al., 2008; Scott et al., 2010;
Yough & Anderman, 2006). However, convergent analysis of survey and interview data suggests
there is in fact a need to be met. Survey data displayed in Figure 8 show a large majority of
managers feel encouraged to explore change and believe that managers like themselves
understand the need to institutionalize change practices. But, while reinforcing these survey data,
interview data show that goal orientation remains ad hoc and decentralized. When asked to
assess the level of intentionality they applied to developing a change mind and skill set,
managers generally and not unexpectedly scored themselves fairly high (3.5 to 4 on a simple 5-
point scale). However, none could provide examples of university-supplied formal information,
learning, job aids, or education to support their development. Nor could they describe evaluation
or performance criteria expected of them that related to change mastery. As such, goal
orientation, specifically a mastery-orientation, while adequately evidenced at the individual
103

level, is not institutionalized across the organization and thus presents both as a gap and an asset.
The following section explores in more detail goal orientation as an asset on which
recommendations can be built.
Figure 8. Survey responses, goal orientation (N=56).
Finding Two: Managers instinctively use the sense-seize-reconfigure model to
manage change. The literature on change readiness, specifically strategic management as a
dynamic capability, discussed in Chapter Two, elevates the importance of managerial ability to
pursue change mastery through the three-part process of sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring
(Teece & Pisano, 1998). Change mastery requires managers be able to sense change, seize the
moment, and understand how to reconfigure the firm’s assets to meet new challenges. This
approach is a fundamental managerial mindset that drives the procedural development of change
savvy patterns of performance and sparks the development and deployment of broader
organizational dynamic capabilities. (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009; Helfat et al., 2007; Zollo &
104

Winter, 2002). Throughout the interview data, evidence supports that university managers
instinctively apply this mindset in their work.
Sensing. Managers readily described their experiences sensing the need for change. For
some, sensing was merely a feeling, “I just I felt like there was more that I could be doing to
better serve the University,” explained Don, who at the time was a brand new hire spending most
of his time doing clerical work. For others, like Martin, the dean referenced earlier, sensing was
both intrapersonal as well as crowd-sourced, “So, it probably took too long, it did take too long,
to make the [change]. People had been talking to me about it for a while … In my mind I didn’t
have an alternative … and I just kept thinking about it.” Often, sensing was sharp and immediate,
born out of critical listening and a strategic disposition such as that which Kendra displayed, “I
was sitting in a meeting with the rest of the team and they were talking about the undergrad
deposit and how they do that online, and I said, ‘wait, what?’ Once I found out that that wasn't
the case … I did a little bit of research.” The evidence indicates that although Amity managers
approach sensing with unique dispositions that align to their own management styles, this
awareness is common to their thinking and motivates their movement toward change.
Seizing. Managers were not hard pressed to identify examples when sensing motivated
them to act. As with sensing, managers’ approaches to seizing varied by personality and
leadership style, but the common theme across interviews was agency animated by a keen belief
that the time had come to act. Exploring responses from Don, Martin, and Kendra, cited in the
sensing data, above, illustrate this connection. First, Don, who intuitively felt there was more he
could do to serve the organization, seized the moment for change by taking steps to explore and
learn. He said:
105

I started looking into things like cost of instruction and being part of the budgeting team.
I think [the CFO] recognized that I have those kinds of talents. I'm glad that he did. …He
actually came to my supervisor and said, ‘you know what, Don’s been doing a good job,
but we're ready to make a change here.’ I almost jumped up on my desk to give him a
hug and a kiss!
Martin, after much intrapersonal reflection, seized the moment to change a critical department
within his academic school:
So then what I did, what we did, I made the move. I said, ‘I am going to be chair.’ [Now]
there are a number of departments I could chair. I don’t know if [this] is one of them. I
don’t know all that much about it, but I was going to do it and just try to figure it out.
And what about Kendra, who was surprised by outdated practices she discovered during the
middle of a routine meeting? She, too exhibited seizing driven out of agency and a clear
conviction that action was needed. She explained:
Once I found out that wasn't the case, I did a little bit of research. I hadn't really thought
about a different way. … [But] I figured out … I got the right people in the room. [We]
had to have a couple of meetings because it was another one of those things where like,
‘what? We're doing something different,’ and ‘Oh, this won't work,’ but we worked
through all of that and finally got it up and running.
Reconfiguring. Finally, the data show that managers intuitively pursued the final stage of
the sense-seize pattern as they reconfigured resources to achieve strategic change mastery. In
each case, managers could articulate whether it was budget, talent, processes, or cross-
department collaboration that they recalibrated to not only seize a needed change, but see it
106

through and sustain its success. In this way, reconfiguring is in some respect never-ending. It
becomes a continuous change mastery mindset and behavior pattern. Deb explained it like this:
We’re still reconfiguring [toward that change]. I just moved a couple of folks around and
created a new position because we're still not executing on parts that we should have had
done by now. And that's probably where you know, if you were sitting with that team
they would look at me and be like, ‘what else are we doing now?’
The managerial inclination to use the sense-seize-reconfigure approach is a key asset that
will move the organization from its existing ad hoc approach (outlined in the previous findings)
toward institutionalized strategic change awareness. Such conscious, and motivated management
is a critical muscle in the shaping of overall organizational change capacity and will support
innovative recommendations toward a more consistent, robust change ready organization.
Organization Influences toward Change Readiness
When considering change, the context in which change occurs is as important to
organizational readiness as its content. Change readiness demands a relentlessly conscious
culture, wherein management values change, presents a robust change mindset, and delivers a
consistent change practice, while leadership instill vision that shapes and directs this day-to-day
work (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009; Kerber & Buono, 2005; Rindova & Kotha, 2001; Tushman
& O’Reilly, 1996; Weiner, 2009). Given this significance, the organizational factors that most
influence stakeholder performance prove central to the study’s proposed conceptual framework
and to its eventual recommendations. The following results support five key findings specific to
the demands of change readiness that evidence important needs within the university’s cultural
model and its related settings.

107

Cultural Models
The data support two findings that are important needs relative to the organizational
influence of cultural models on middle manager performance at Amity University: The
organization needs to support a management culture that values change.
Finding One: Managers regard themselves and managers like themselves
moderately open to change, but less so the organization’s leadership. The data show that
managers perceive themselves and managers like them moderately open to change, while at the
same time viewing the organization and its leadership as less supportive. The accelerating nature
of change requires organizations to build openness. Those that fail to do so will likely fail at
change management (Bennebroek Gravenhorst, et al., 2003; Heckman et al., 2016). The survey
results show 52.54% feel the management culture places a moderate value on organizational
change. 23.73% say the change value is high. 23.73% say the change value is low. When asked
to consider “managers like me” and indicate their level of agreement with specific cultural
attributes, most agreed that Amity managers are open to change, willing and able to challenge
the status quo, and encouraged to explore change. Figure 9 illustrates these results and shows
that the level of agreement shifts when managers reflect on items related to perceived leadership
support of change (a result discussed in more detail in the next finding of this section).

108

Figure 9. Manager perception of change and management.
Similarly, interview data show that while managers describe change in their immediate
departments as generally scary, challenging, and even at times unwelcome, each reject the status
quo and make positive associations with the concepts of innovation, risk, change agency,
exploration, and failure. However, when asked their perceptions of those same concepts broadly
across the organization, their responses reveal negative associations. Table 10 uses the responses
from two managers to illustrate the differences between managers’ personal free associations
with change concepts as compared to how they perceive the organization. In a related interview
question, when asked to rate the university’s degree of change readiness on a scale of one to five,
the majority of respondents gave mid-level scores. Their explanations for these differences
touched both on perceived leadership support as well as broader cultural needs, which leads into
the second finding for this organizational influence.

109

Table 10
Manager Associations with Change Concepts
Kendra Vince
Concept Self Org Self Org
Status Quo It’s not really a
word. More like
a, meh.
People [are] just kind
of okay with it.
Yuck. Awful. It feels good, safe.
Innovation Yes, I like it.
Exciting.
Cautiously optimistic Exciting and scary. Scary.
Risk Nervously
excited.
No. Bad. Threatening and
opportunity.
Threatening, really
scary, high anxiety.
Failure Fearful. Really bad. There’s no such
thing.
Fearful.
Change
Agent
[long pause} I
want to be one. I
aspire to be one.
Skeptical I hope I can be.
Yeah. I hope I truly
can be.
Pariah. That’s pretty
dark. Threatening.
Exploration Exciting Maybe, sometimes. Beautiful. Yeah.
Roll up your
sleeves.
Tolerable,
experimental. Not as
threatening.
Finding Two: Managers do not perceive a pervasive change openness within the
organization. Interview and survey data show that the university lacks a consistent change
culture. Change readiness varies team-to-team and department-by-department. Don explained it
this way:
I would say that there are a lot of pockets of the University; little fiefdoms that are stuck
in their ways and more resistant than others to change … There are others that I think are
very innovative and receptive to change. They see the benefits that can come [from]
change; so, that's kind of the low-hanging fruit. It will be easy to work with those people.
[But] we have a big challenge in front of us.
Ronnie added depth to the variance, specifically noting the mediating influence of leadership on
readiness, a theme that others also shared:
110

I think it is [long pause] … I think it depends on the department you’re in, which leads
me to feel that one of the things that will dictate how people feel about change is their
leader. … Organizationally, I think on a scale of 1 to 10, we’re probably 4.5 or 5. I could
pull out departments; this department is at 8, or this department is at 2. And we have so
many different communities within the university, academics, etc. I don’t have to tell you
how we’re structured. People who are truly ready? I think it's a function of their leader.
The mediating influence of leadership on change. As Chapter Two presents, the
literature on change readiness makes clear leadership’s particular, outsize influence on middle
manager performance; particularly with respect to the development and deployment of dynamic
capabilities (Taylor & Helfat, 2009). Survey and interview data support Ronnie’s hunch that
leadership influences the university’s change-related cultural models. Consider once more Figure
9. While generally managers agree that they and managers like them are open to change, their
overall degree of agreement drops when asked about their opportunities to voice concerns about
change, whether university leaders articulate a consistent vision, and whether university leaders
support change. Of interest, the items related to leadership also evidence the greatest levels of
statistical variance. Table 11 displays these data.
Table 11
Manager Perception of Change Management Culture (N=58)
%
Item SA/A D/SD Mean Std. Dev. Variance
Managers like me regularly open themselves to
consider change proposals.
74.13 12.07 3.81 .88 .77
Managers like me are encouraged to explore
change
67.24 13.79 3.67 .94 .88

111

Table 11 continued

Managers like me are willing and able to
challenge the status quo.
65.51 15.51 3.62 .94 .89
Managers like me have opportunities to voice
concerns about university change.
58.62 27.58 3.38 1.01 1.03
University leaders consistently articulate an
inspiring vision of the future.
41.37 31.03 3.33 .97 .94
University leaders show courage in their support
of change initiatives.
51.72 27.58 3.67 .94 .88
Note. SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, D = Disagree, SD = Strongly Disagree
This variance suggests that the dynamic between managers and leadership lacks
consistency across the institution, and may influence how managers’ departments position
themselves relative to change. Deb said:
I can share what I think and what people tell me. I don't know why, [but] again, it is
senior administration, communication, and transparency. But, I see myself as responsible
for communicating that and then I get a lot of, “but it’s not you Deb, we trust you.” And
so … I've been transparent with them. I’ve said, ‘there is no big plan that everybody's
clued in on that you don't know.’ But because I sense there's a lack of trust I can't help
but think that's got to be a part of it; if I'm responsible for communicating some of that.
Thus, the evidence shows an inconsistent cultural models related to change, both in terms of how
managers perceive themselves and managers like them as compared to the institution and as
managers assess the degree of change openness across departments and the necessary support
from leadership. This organizational factor then presents a compelling need that must be
addressed in the recommendations to innovate cultural practice in pursuit of the stakeholder
performance goal.

112

Cultural Settings
The organizational culture at Amity University reflects and reinforces shared mental
schema among middle managers, which play out in discrete cultural settings that feed the overall
model. Particularly in higher education, managers play an essential role in organizational design
given their outsize influence to operationalize the institutional culture directly with students and
stakeholders (Navarro & Gallardo, 2003). The conceptual framework that guides this study
recognizes this role and places manager as connector in the middle of the dynamic. In these
settings, cultural scripts play out regularly and consistently and thereby shape the values, goals,
and attitudes for change readiness. Thus, the following set of three organizational (cultural
setting) influences and the related findings with respect to change readiness among middle
managers warrant careful consideration.
Influence and Finding One: Underdeveloped ambidextrous change management.
The data reveal a key finding that is an important need relative to the organizational influence of
an ambidextrous change management cultural setting on middle manager performance at Amity
University: The organization needs to support ambidextrous change management.
“Ambidexterity,” argues Tushman and O”Reilly (1996) forms the “real test of [change]
leadership” (p.11). As discussed in Chapter Two, an ambidextrous management approach is
particularly useful in high density change contexts, such as exist at Amity University. Its
achievement depends on cultural settings that construct and continue to support its possession
and use. The data show that middle managers lack time and formal support to consistently and
continuously perform ambidextrous change management behaviors. While survey data show
72.88% of managers agree or strongly agree that the university protects its core values, while
encouraging change, and 81.03% agree or strongly agree that managers balance innovation with
113

getting things done, when aligned with the interview data it becomes evident that ambidextrous
management at the university is ad hoc, inconsistent, and informally developed.
During interviews each manager identified at least some percentage of their work spent
“exploring the future,” but all gave more weight to “improving what already exists.” Certainly,
this finding was not unexpected. Equally unsurprising was the readiness with which each
manager expressed regret at not investing more time thinking about the future. To a one,
managers understood the necessity of future-thinking as central to change readiness. Their
responses illustrated perhaps the most central need of the organization in its pursuit of change
readiness. Asked, “How does the university support both of those focuses: exploring/innovating
and exploiting/maintaining,” managers spoke with remarkable frequency about their generalized
sense of organizational support, but their responses were entirely absent of any specific, explicit
examples of how the university intentionally develops this critical attribute within its managers.
Martin said, “How does the university support me in doing that? I don’t think of any explicit
ways, but I am not hindered in any way either. I wouldn’t say I am hindered in any way. If there
was something I thought I needed, I think could get it. I would have access to those resources.”
Kendra echoed Martin’s themes and like her peers evidenced manager-led initiative, absent
formal guidance. She said: “So, I also have weekly check-ins with my boss and we talk about
both. He’s really supportive with ideas that I have. He’ll say, ‘yeah, run with it just do it.’ I feel
supported.” The follow-up attempted to draw out more from her response, “Besides ‘just run
with it,’ do you get any other explicit support?” She continued:
Just if I hit any roadblocks or have questions, especially historical things. So, I go to him
sometimes to see if he knows why things are a certain way and if he sees any ripple
effects if we change it. He's always very supportive in that way, too. He makes it very
114

clear that if I have questions or need help or need him to help advocate with somebody
who is not open to change. He'll basically do what I need to be done to help.
Given the general tendency of people and organizations over time to move toward inertia,
this lack of strategic intent within the culture represents a fundamental need that must be
overcome to achieve the performance goal.
Influence and Finding Two: Lack of a change-focused learning environment. The
data further reveal a finding that is an important need relative to a second influence of the
cultural setting: The organization needs to support a change-focused learning environment.
The survey results show that Amity University lacks a change-focused learning
environment. Figure 10 and 11 illustrate the degree to which managers agreed or disagreed about
two cultural attributes that would support a learning culture. 41.37% of managers surveyed
disagreed or strongly disagreed that the university culture provides resources to experiment with
new ideas, while only 36% agreed that the university allows people to take risks and occasionally
fail.

Figure 10. Manager perception of learning environment: resources for new ideas.

115

Figure 11. Manager perception of learning environment: risk and failure tolerated.
Interview data reflect similarly tepid feelings about the overall change threshold and
appetite for learning within the organization. When asked how risk and failure are perceived in
the organization, Martin said, “I think generally the university is pretty forgiving, which again
may be a good thing if you want to encourage risk and that’s different from encouraging
incompetence. But if people try something bold and it’s thought out and it fails, I think the
university should tolerate that and for the most part it does.” Yet, when managers were asked to
freely associate their feelings and their perception of the feelings of the organization to particular
change concepts, when it came to the word failure, all used a variation on the theme of fear,
fearfulness, or at the most basic, “really bad.” In light of these data, then it is evident that the
university has a need to build cultural settings that more intentionally nurture a change-focused
learning environment.
Influence and Finding Three: Inconsistent use of managers-as-connectors to create
change readiness. The data support an essential finding relative to a third influence of the
cultural setting: The organization needs to support managers to link institutional vision for
116

change with daily routines. The determination of this influence as a need is among the most
significant of the study.
The use of managers as connectors in the facilitation of organizational change readiness
is central to this study’s proposed conceptual framework. While somewhat mixed, considered
together the survey and interview data show that the university inconsistently uses managers to
create change readiness. The survey shows 47% of managers agreed or strongly agreed that
managers like themselves effectively link senior leadership with frontline employees. The survey
also shows 55% agreed or strongly agreed that senior leaders encourage managers to embrace
change. However, when analyzing survey data of those specific behaviors that most enable
managers to perform as connectors, the levels of agreement drop and the variance increases.
These specific behaviors include:
1. Change related communication flows effectively from senior leaders to
employees;
2. Managers are equipped to communicate clearly when the organization is
going to change; and
3. Senior leaders encourage management to embrace change;
Figure 12 displays the percentages of agreement with these specific items when managers were
asked to reflect on the university's culture and mark the degree to which they agreed or disagreed
with the statements about change in the culture.
117

Figure 12. Manager agreement of managers as connectors.
Although these data establish the influence as a critical need, convergence with the
interview data deepens the analysis and shows an emerging change ready culture. When asked
“How does the university use managers like you to achieve major change,” managers
consistently used positive words to explain their involvement:
“I feel empowered …”
“There’s a lot of discretion given …”
“The university uses managers like me in a very efficient and supportive way …”
“I think that depending on the department they communicate well to get managers on my
level on board to positively communicate and influence the change with our teams.” Given the
centrality of this influence and its mediating impact on the achievement of the identified
stakeholder goal, the recommendations to close this particular performance gap will prove
critical to the proposed innovations in Chapter Five. As with each of the five organizational
factor findings, there is a seed from which to grow. The organization’s change culture is nascent
and inchoate, but not non-existent and therefore, while the needs are multiple, there also exists a
degree of asset within each from which innovation can stem.

118

Summary of Validated Influences
Table 12, 13 and 14 show the knowledge, motivation and organization influences for this
study, the related findings for each, and the determination of the influence as an asset or a need.
Knowledge
Table 12
Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Knowledge Influence Findings Asset or Need
Factual

Managers need to know the
performance gaps between where
the organization is and where it
needs to be, and the change
capabilities required to close the
gap.
Individual knowledge about
performance goals facilitates
behaviors that influence
organizational readiness.

Managers recognize the need
to persuade and ally people
toward change, but lack
complete knowledge of the
change capabilities required
to close performance gaps.
Asset

Need
Conceptual
Managers must know the levels of
change readiness, commitment,
efficacy, and urgency within
individual employees and the
organization as a whole, and
appreciate the ways that these
factors interleave to intensify
readiness.

Managers know that
individual employee beliefs
influence change, but do not
appreciate the interaction
between personal and
organizational change
readiness factors.
Need
Procedural
Managers need to know how to
perform the behaviors that most
influence the factors that create
change readiness within individuals
and teams.
Procedural knowledge gaps
result in inconsistent,
transactional performance of
the behaviors most necessary
to the creation of change
readiness.
Need

119

Motivation
Table 13
Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Motivation Influence Findings Asset or Need
Cost Value

Managers need to believe that the
effort, emotion, and energy of
change are worth the cost.
Managers reflect moderately
high belief that the value of
change is worth the cost.

Managers view change as less
personally beneficial than
organizationally beneficial.

Individual change valence
flows from a vibrant mission
match between organizational
purpose and personal
worldview.
Asset

Need

Asset
Efficacy
Managers must believe in their
individual and in the organization’s
collective competence to achieve
change goals.
Managers exhibit high
degrees of individual
efficacy, but low degrees of
collective efficacy.

Managers’ perceptions of
collective efficacy were
mediated by their views of
senior leadership.

Need

Need
Goal Orientation: Mastery
Managers should work toward
strategic change mastery
Individual awareness of the
need for change motivates
manager readiness more than
organizational
encouragement to pursue
change mastery.

Managers instinctively use
the sense-seize-reconfigure
model to manage change.
Need

Asset

120

Organization
Table 14
Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Organization Influence Findings Asset or Need
Cultural Models

The organization needs to support a
management culture that values
change.
Managers regard themselves
and managers like themselves
moderately open to change,
but less so the organization’s
leadership.

Managers do not perceive
pervasive openness to change
throughout the organization.

Need

Need
Cultural Setting
The organization needs to support
ambidextrous change management.
Managers lack time and
formal support to consistently
and continuously perform
those behaviors most
important for ambidextrous
change management.
Need

The organization needs to support a
change-focused learning
environment.

The organization lacks a
change-focused learning
environment.
Need

The organization needs to support
managers to link institutional vision
for change with daily routines.
The university is inconsistent
in its use of managers to
create change readiness.
Need

121

Conclusion
This chapter presents the study’s results and findings and answers the research question:
what are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that influence Middle Managers
at Amity University to embrace and effectuate change in their organization? The findings
provide an empirically sound set of assertions, both needs that must be supplied and assets that
can be leveraged, in the pursuit of the identified stakeholder goal. It is to that the study now
turns. Guided by the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis method, Chapter Five draws from the
literature on change readiness, as well as learning, motivation, and organizational theory, to
answer the study’s final question and identify the recommendations for innovative organizational
practice that will enable middle managers to close the gaps presented by the data in pursuit of a
more change ready organization ready to withstand the dynamic landscape of 21
st
century higher
education.

122

CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
This innovation study analyzes the performance gaps that must be closed in order to
establish organizational change readiness at Amity University (pseudonym) through training that
ensures academic and operational managers develop the necessary dynamic managerial
capabilities—that is the knowledge, values, and behaviors—to effectuate change in the
organization. Application of the Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework suggests how
knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) factors influence managerial performance
and exposes possible gaps. Qualitative exploration yields data that support key findings, which
validate the assumed KMO influences and sharpen the gaps. This chapter presents evidence-
driven recommendations to address validated KMO influences through training that facilitates
the achievement of the identified goal. Both the literature on change readiness and the findings of
this study support the recommendations. Application of the New World Kirkpatrick Model
(2016) organizes the KMO recommendations into a clear, prescriptive plan that not only
achieves the training mandate within the identified stakeholder goal, but does so within a
framework that elevates the ultimate organizational goal toward which the innovation must lead.
The chapter begins with a restatement of the organization’s mission, goal, and the study’s
identified stakeholder group of focus and its goal. The chapter also restates the study’s central
purpose and key questions. It is useful to review these core elements of this study as these are the
foundation for the recommendations and the innovation plan that follows.
Organizational Context and Mission
Amity University, Inc. (pseudonym) is a nonprofit institution of higher learning serving
more than 7300 students online, at two residential campuses in the upper Midwest United States,
123

and at eight center locations across the region. The organization is affiliated with an international
Christian denomination headquartered in the United States.
Amity’s two residential campuses have very different performance histories. Campus
One was founded in the late 1800s and Campus Two formed as an independent institution in the
early 1960s. Campus One has enrolled the largest student population in the Amity University
System since the late 1980s and has achieved year-over-year operational profitability since the
early 2000s. In 2009, Campus One entered into a strategic relationship with then failing Campus
Two, which led to its formal acquisition in 2013. Today, the University operates independently
under a single president and Board of Regents that fulfills its governance responsibilities and
ensures the autonomy of university administration, faculty, and staff.
The mission statement elevates the organization’s commitment to educate the whole
person–body, mind, and spirit–and to prepare learners for professional and personal success in
both the world as well as the Church. The mission provides a clear definition of institutional
identity and is a concise articulation of the university’s core purpose. As such, it shapes every
accountability relationship within the organization.
Organizational Performance Goal
Amity University’s global performance goal is by the close of FY21 to establish baseline
organizational change readiness through ongoing integrated learning that trains 100% of
academic and operations administration, management, and staff to identify, embrace, and
maximize change opportunities (partnership, merger, and expansion). The president’s expanded
leadership team, a strategic group that includes the senior cabinet, vice presidents, vice provosts,
and University deans, developed the goal in fall 2017. It was adopted by the University Planning
Committee and drove the formation of the 2018-2021 University Plan, including all division and
124

academic school plans. The University Plan was formally received by the Board of Regents in
November 2018. Achievement of the performance objectives presented in the Plan and the
institution’s performance as measured by the University’s Key Performance Indicators will
demonstrate goal attainment.
Evaluation of the organization’s performance toward its goal is important for a variety of
reasons. In an increasingly complex and volatile higher education context, small, nonprofit,
private, faith-based institutions face an increased risk for closure. The 2015 acquisition of Amity
University Campus 2 by Amity University Campus One testifies to the threatened future these
institutions face. At the time of the acquisition, Campus Two was the most financially stressed,
least enrolled school within the Amity University System. In the years since, the campus has
seen meteoric growth, doubling its enrollment of traditional undergraduate students and posting a
15-percent improvement in its fall-to-fall traditional undergraduate retention (Amity University,
2020). The degree to which Amity University successfully maintains and sustains its
performance and overall change readiness in the wake of such significant institutional shifts will
determine its capacity to meet the stated global goal. A performance evaluation of key
stakeholders within the system will facilitate the organization’s use of data and suggest proactive
strategies to support the pursuit of Amity University’s best preferred future.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Three primary stakeholder groups directly contribute to and benefit from the achievement
of the organization’s goal. These include the Office of Strategy and Institutional Effectiveness,
the President’s Leadership Team, and the university’s academic and operational middle
managers. Each of these stakeholder groups is critical to the achievement of the global goal. The
Office of Strategy and Institutional Effectiveness provides key data to accurately identify the
125

performance gap and is responsible for the planning, implementation, and assessment of
organization-wide change capability development. The President’s Leadership Team is the
senior administrative body and includes the President, Executive Vice President, Provost, Senior
Vice President for Strategy, Senior Vice President for University Advancement, and the vice
presidents and vice provosts. Largely based at Campus One, the senior administration at Campus
Two includes a Chief Campus Executive. University middle managers include both academics
and operations assistant vice presidents, associate vice provosts, executive directors, and the
academic deans. While the majority of operations and academic management are based at
Campus One, Campus Two houses campus deans for each of that location’s four academic
schools. Middle management participates in the annual President’s Expanded Leadership Team
retreat and many participate as part of the University Planning Committee, which oversees the
development of the institution's strategic plan. Some operations managers also participate in the
monthly gatherings of the President’s Administrative Council and the Provost’s Expanded
Academic Council. Middle management almost entirely comprise the university’s Strategic
Information and Analysis Committee, a body that works in the gap between academics and
operations to facilitate continuous quality improvement of systems and processes.
Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study
While achievement of the stated organizational goal requires effort from all stakeholders,
the literature on change readiness emphasizes the outsize role that management plays in change
success (Adner, Helfat, Hoopes, Madsen, & Walker, 2003; Andreeva & Ritala, 2016; Eisenhardt,
Martin, & Helfat, 2000; Rindova & Kotha, 2001; Teece, et. al, 1997; Zollo & Winter, 2002)
Therefore, it is critical to evaluate how middle management progresses toward its performance
goal, and thus the stakeholder group of focus for this study is operations and academic Middle
126

Managers. The performance goal for this group is that By October 2020, 25% of university
academic and operational middle managers will demonstrate the knowledge, values, and
behaviors necessary to effectuate change in the organization. Failure to accomplish this goal will
stunt the university’s ability to achieve its overall strategic goal to ensure total system change
readiness by the close of FY2021.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
This innovation study analyzes the performance gaps that must be closed in order to
establish organizational change readiness at Amity University (pseudonym) through training that
ensures academic and operational managers develop the necessary dynamic managerial
capabilities, that is the knowledge, values, and behaviors that are necessary to effectuate change
in the organization.
Applying the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model, the study first identifies from
the literature the relevant knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that cause the
performance gap, or needs. In order for the organization to achieve its intended goal,
stakeholders must receive performance support enough to overcome validated KMO barriers.
While a complete gap analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the
stakeholder group for this analysis is Amity University operations and academic middle
managers. Following an identification of possible KMO influences on performance, this study
examines and validates the effect of each on the current performance of the identified
stakeholder group.
As such, the questions that guide this study are:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that influence Middle
Managers at Amity University to embrace and effectuate change in their organization?
127

2. What are the recommendations for innovative organizational practice in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources that will enable Middle Managers to
demonstrate these attributes?
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Table 15 represents a complete list of the assumed knowledge influences on managerial
change readiness at Amity University. Analysis of qualitative survey and interview data
supported by the literature on change readiness (Chapter Two) and Clark and Estes (2008), who
argue the central role of education to equip people to handle change, validate these assumed
influences and prioritize each in the achievement of the identified stakeholder performance goal.
Table 15 also identifies context-specific recommendations drawn from learning theory to
facilitate performance improvement toward each identified influence.
Table 15
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Validated Priority

Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Managers need to know the
performance gaps between
where the organization is
and where it needs to be, and
the change capabilities
required to close the gap. (K
- Factual)

V Y Information learned
meaningfully and
connected with prior
knowledge is stored
more quickly and
remembered more
accurately because it
is elaborated with
prior learning
(Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).

Provide managers
education that guides
them to integrate new
information about
change capabilities with
their prior knowledge
about performance gaps
and the strategies they
typically use to close
them.

128

Table 15 continued

Facilitating transfer
promotes learning
(Mayer, 2011).

Facilitate immediate
transfer through
coaching delivered in
group settings during
which managers model
the integration of new
knowledge to novel
work situations and
discuss their new
understanding.
Managers must know the
levels of change readiness,
commitment, efficacy, and
urgency within individual
employees and the
organization as a whole, and
appreciate the ways that
these factors interleave to
intensify readiness. (K -
Conceptual)
V Y To develop mastery,
individuals must
acquire component
skills, practice
integrating them,
and know when to
apply what they
have learned
(Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).

Learning is
enhanced when the
learner’s working
memory capacity is
not overloaded
(Kirshner et al.,
2006).
Provide managers
education and training
that uses familiar
scenarios as a means to
present new information
about individual and
organizational change
factors and includes
facilitated practice,
guided self-reflection,
and peer feedback
exercises.

Scenarios and feedback
loops should
intentionally connect
new information with
managers’ existing
knowledge to develop
their robust appreciation
of the ways these
discrete concepts work
together to create
readiness.

129

Table 15 continued
Managers need to know how
to perform the behaviors that
most influence the factors
that create change readiness
within individuals and
teams. (P)

V

Y

Effective
observational
learning is achieved
by first organizing
and rehearsing
modeled behaviors,
then enacting them
overtly (Mayer,
2011).

Modeled behavior is
more likely to be
adopted if the model
is credible, similar
(e.g., gender,
culturally
appropriate), and the
behavior has
functional value
(Denler et al., 2009).

Feedback that is
private, specific, and
timely enhances
performance (Shute,
2008).

Provide peer-led training
in which
transformational leaders
model how to select and
perform behaviors to
create readiness within
individuals and teams,
and that guides
managers to practice
using authentic case
scenarios.

Following the training,
managers will maintain
a reflection journal that
will be used during
ongoing coaching
feedback sessions to link
learning, behaviors, and
performance.
Note. K represents knowledge, which is either factual or conceptual. P represents procedural knowledge. V =
validated.
The following section presents recommendations to close the knowledge gaps presented
in Table 15. The recommendations draw both from the literature on learning and the literature on
change readiness. The section includes three knowledge gaps: declarative-factual, declarative-
conceptual, and procedural. Each gap must be closed in order to achieve the stakeholder
performance goal: By October 2020, 25% of university middle managers will demonstrate the
knowledge, values, and behaviors necessary to effectuate change in the organization.
130

Achievement of this performance goal requires recommendations not only to close knowledge
gaps, but also to develop the requisite change readiness within managers. Change readiness is an
attitude simultaneously influenced by content, context, process, and the unique characteristics of
people and systems (Holt et al., 2007). Therefore, in order to accomplish learning goals and close
the performance gaps, while at the same time pursuing the study’s identified performance goal,
the recommendations draw from existing research to simultaneously accomplish both outcomes.
In essence, the recommendations aim to build change readiness even while educating middle
managers about change readiness.
Increase manager knowledge about change capabilities that close performance gaps.
The findings indicate that 84.75% of middle managers know their performance goals and can
describe performance gaps that prevent goal achievement. However, the findings also show that
middle manager knowledge about the change capabilities required to close those gaps is
underdeveloped. A recommendation rooted in information processing theory stands to close this
declarative-factual knowledge gap. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) suggest information learned
meaningfully and connected with prior knowledge is stored more quickly and remembered more
accurately because it is elaborated with prior learning. In this way, transfer, or the effect of prior
learning on new learning, affects knowledge and performance (Mayer, 2011). Information
processing strategies that facilitate transfer include tasks that promote organizing and integrating
information, along with guidance, modeling, coaching, and scaffolding during performance
(Mayer, 2011). The recommendation therefore is to provide middle managers with education that
integrates new information about change capabilities with their existing knowledge about
performance goals and gaps. Critical to this recommendation is its emphasis on ensuring
immediate transfer through coaching delivered by upper management in group settings, wherein
131

integration of new knowledge to novel work situations is modeled and rehearsed, and middle
managers discuss their understanding. Not only does this recommendation fit with learning
theory, but it fits the literature on change readiness and its creation among management.
Education that creates knowledge both about the need for change and the capabilities
necessary to effectuate it is essential to the creation of change readiness (Holt et al., 2007; Jones,
Jimmieson, & Griffiths, 2005; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Moreover, the mediating influence of
relationships on readiness suggests such education is best delivered from leader to manager,
manager to employee (Miller, Madsen, & John, 2006). In their 2005 study of government
managers, Jones, Jimmieson, and Griffiths (2005) concluded that manager perceptions both of
change capabilities and of the overall human relations dynamic in the organization most
influence the mediating impact of change readiness on change implementation success. Their
evidence suggests that managers who perceive strong human relations report higher levels of
readiness, which in turn mediates the relationship between change capabilities and their use
(Jones et al., 2005). Holt et al. (2007) extended this work in their development of an instrument
to gauge at the individual level the organization’s overall readiness for change. The findings
from their survey of 900 public and private sector employees revealed readiness was
multidimensional and depended most on individual beliefs about efficacy, appropriateness,
personal valence, and management support. Thus, any education intended to meet factual
knowledge needs at Amity University must meet the requirements of proven learning theory,
while also facilitating the goal of achieving change readiness among middle managers.
Develop manager conceptual knowledge about how individual and organizational
change factors cohere to create readiness. The survey and interview findings indicate that
managers know that individual beliefs influence a person’s particular change posture. However,
132

managers lack critical conceptual knowledge about the dynamic between individual and
organizational factors, which together influence overall organizational change readiness. The
achievement of the identified performance goal requires managers to develop this understanding.
Given that change is often conceptually complex, the recommendation to meet this need draws
both from information processing theory and cognitive load theory. First, Schraw and
McCrudden (2006) argue that to achieve mastery learners must acquire component skills,
practice integrating them, and know when to apply what they have learned. Baker (2006)
suggests that metacognitive strategies are essential to learning when to apply conceptual
knowledge. The recommendation therefore supports the deconstruction of complex tasks and
concepts and emphasizes the need for learners to think strategically and self-reflectively (and
even self-critically) on their use of the concepts (Baker, 2006; Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).
Second, given the emphasis on reflection and because learning at the conceptual level is
enhanced when working memory capacity is not overloaded, the recommendation applies
cognitive load theory; emphasizing the connection of new information with prior knowledge in
the context of a familiar situation (Kirshner, Kirschner, & Paas, 2006; Mayer, 2011). Building on
these theories, the recommendation is to deliver education through training that uses familiar
scenarios as a means for managers to self-assess their personal, existing knowledge about
organizational and individual change factors. Then, managers experience facilitated practice and
peer feedback exercises that connect new information with existing knowledge to develop their
conceptual understanding of how these factors interleave to create readiness.
In order to drive change readiness, while simultaneously closing the conceptual
knowledge gap, managers must understand the influence on readiness of individual and
organizational factors through learning that involves both the individual and the organizational
133

levels. Wanberg and Banas’ (2000) longitudinal study of workplace change examined individual
and organizational context-specific variables on openness for change among employees working
in a government setting. Their study revealed that organizations need individuals who can adapt
easily to change and that managers need to understand how individual variables work in relation
to organizational variables. Specifically, Wanberg and Banas (2000) found that managers should
direct training at the individual level in order to build confidence for organizational change and
that individuals with higher levels of resilience were then more likely to benefit from
participation in change processes. In this same way, the above recommendation proves
appropriate because it leverages the individual manager’s own thinking with regard to change
and develops from their singular perspectives a heightened understanding of the individual’s
influence on the organization as a whole.
Train managers to perform transformational change management. The findings of
this study reveal procedural knowledge gaps that result in inconsistent, transactional performance
of the behaviors most necessary to the creation of change readiness. Only 10% of survey
respondents demonstrated complete procedural knowledge of effective and ineffective behaviors
that managers might perform during a given change scenario. Survey and interview data reflect
an overabundance of self-reliance. A majority of managers identified themselves least likely to
perform transformational procedural change behaviors, such as constructing opportunities for
people to actively participate in change, which are proven to mobilize individuals, inspire teams,
and achieve change readiness. Given manager emphasis on their own individual, transactional
performance, the recommendation to close this knowledge gap draws from social cognitive
learning theory so as to both train managers on change readiness, while also deepening their
recognition of the team and the importance of the organization. According to Mayer (2011),
134

organizing and rehearsing modeled behaviors before enacting them enables effective
observational learning. Modeled behavior is more likely to be adopted if the model is credible, or
similar, and if the behavior has functional value (Denler. Walters, & Benzon, 2009). Rehearsing
ought to incorporate meaningful feedback that is specific, timely, and delivered privately (Shute,
2008). The recommendation therefore is to provide peer-led training by known, transformational
organizational leaders, who will model how to select and perform behaviors that create readiness
within individuals and teams. The trainer will guide managers to practice using authentic case
scenarios. Following training, managers will maintain reflection journals to link learning,
behaviors, and performance during ongoing coaching sessions.
Change readiness requires robust procedural (transactional) competence, but is most
effectively created when transformational effort is consistently, dramatically, and repeatedly
deployed (Dasborough et al., 2015; Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu, 2008; Nordin, 2011;
Vakola, 2014). Therefore, to close the knowledge gap and also to pursue the stakeholder
performance goal, a learning experience that models and inculcates transformational
competencies, while also teaching transactional practices, must be designed. In their study of 343
employees (30 of them managers) across 30 organizations, Herold et al. (2008) examined the
relationship between transformational leadership, transactional change behaviors, and employee
change commitment. Their goal was to discern whether the manager-employee relationship was
moderated by the leader’s transactional behavior or by the leader’s perceived transformational
competence. Their results revealed that while change management behaviors (procedural,
transactional) are necessary to facilitate greater degrees of employee change commitment,
transformational leadership is more significantly and positively related to change commitment.
This is particularly true when the change is targeted at the employee’s job-specific level (Herold
135

et al., 2008). The evidence affirms the recommendation to use social cognitive learning theory to
train managers through rehearsal of behavior modeled by transformational change leaders using
authentic job-specific scenarios and feedback loops.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. The motivation influences in Table 16 represent the complete list of
assumed motivation influences and identifies whether each was validated as an asset (A) or need
(N). Additionally, the table displays the level of priority for each influence in pursuit of the
identified stakeholder goal. The motivational framework used to guide the discussion is Clark
and Estes’ (2008) three common motivation causes: active choice, persistence, and effort. The
table identifies recommendations for validated influences based on theoretical principles.
Table 16
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Validated
Priority

Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Managers need to believe
that the effort, emotion, and
energy of change are worth
the cost. (Cost Value)
V Y Activating personal
interest through
opportunities for
choice and control
can increase
motivation (Eccles,
2006).
Activating and
building upon
personal interest can
increase learning
and motivation
(Schraw & Lehman,
2009)
Provide opportunities for
middle managers to elect
to join University-level
strategic change project
teams.

Build manager
understanding and
personal interest with
change initiatives.

Connect managers with
peers who
enthusiastically model
individual change
valence and values-to-
mission alignment.

136

Table 16 continued

Managers must believe in
their individual and in the
organization’s collective
competence to achieve
change goals. (Collective
Efficacy)

V

Y

High self-efficacy
can positively
influence motivation
(Pajares, 2006)

Perceived collective
efficacy fosters
groups’ motivational
commitment to their
missions (Bandura,
2000)

Transformational
leadership builds
collective efficacy
(Dussault, Payette,
& Leroux, 2008)

Deliver feedback that
explicitly discusses self
and collective efficacy
and links manager
mindsets with skill sets.

Provide opportunities for
observation of managers
and senior leaders
engaging in behaviors
that build group-level
belief.

Pair managers with
leaders, who are skillful
in delivering feedback
and encouragement, for
guided practice of
strategic change
capabilities.
Managers should work
toward strategic change
mastery. (Goal Orientation)
V Y Mastery-orientation
prizes learning,
understanding, and
involvement, or
active participation
(Pintrich, 2003)
Deliver active, peer-
learning experiences that
develop manager
understanding and use of
the dynamic change
capability to sense,
seize, and reconfigure.
The following section presents recommendations to close the motivation gaps presented
in Table 16. The recommendations draw both from the literature on learning and the literature on
change readiness. The study’s findings validate three motivation gaps: cost value, efficacy, and
goal orientation - mastery. Each must be closed in order to achieve the stakeholder performance
goal: By October 2020, 25% of university middle managers will demonstrate the knowledge,
values, and behaviors necessary to effectuate change in the organization. As with the knowledge
influences, the achievement of the performance goal requires recommendations not only that
close gaps, but also that develop requisite managerial change readiness.
137

Activate personal interest to create manager belief that change is worth the cost. The
data reveal key findings with respect to cost value as a motivational influence on middle
manager performance. 62.06% of middle managers believe that the value of university-level
change is worth the cost, but view the cost of change as less personally valuable, or beneficial
than organizationally beneficial. Cost value was most evident within managers who attached
their personal worldviews to the organization’s purpose. A recommendation based on expectancy
value theory stands to most effectively close the gap. Eccles (2006) suggests that motivation
increases when opportunities for choice and control activate personal interest. Schraw and
Lehman (2009) similarly elevate the influence of interest on motivation and suggest that building
upon personal interest increases learning and motivation. Strategies that facilitate interest and
drive motivation include use of credible, similar models to foster enthusiasm and interest, and the
integration of personal, real-life content that is vivid and novel (Eccles, 2006; Schraw &
Lehman, 2009). The recommendation, then, is first to provide middle managers with
opportunities to self-select university-level strategic change project teams on which to
participate. Second, the recommendation proposes to use dialogue between managers and senior
leaders to reinforce burgeoning interest about various change initiatives. Third, connecting
managers with leaders known to enthusiastically model change valence and values-to-mission
alignment will deepen managers’ belief that change is worth both personal and organizational
effort. In all, this three-part recommendation applies motivation and change readiness theory to
activate manager belief in the cost value of change.
Personal, individual interest is essential for the construction of a collective motivational
mindset that the effort, emotion, and energy change requires are worth the cost (Eccles, 2006;
Holt et al., 2007; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Herscovitch and Meyer’s (2002) study of hospital
138

nurses reveals that individuals develop affective commitment, or a desire to engage, when they
become meaningfully involved. Their findings reveal that personal involvement and an
individual’s perception that their values or identity align with the organization fuels commitment
(Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Jones et al. (2005) explore the degree to which such perceptions
then influence the creation of change readiness. Their data from 67 employees working in state
government reveal that readiness uniquely depends upon employee belief that a particular change
will have a positive personal and organizational impact. Thus, the literature supports the
recommendation to implement strategies that rely on activating personal interest and fostering
value relevance to increase cost value motivation and thereby achieve the stakeholder goal.
Use performance observation and feedback to increase individual and collective
efficacy. The findings reveal that managers express overall change confidence, but their
individual efficacy is higher than their perceptions about the organization’s collective efficacy.
Middle manager capacity to demonstrate the knowledge, values, and behaviors necessary to
effectuate change depends on the creation of individual and collective efficacy (Armenakis,
Harris, & Mossholder, 1993).Whereas self-efficacy is understood as an individual’s belief in
their own capacity to perform, collective efficacy is a personal conviction about the group or
organization’s ability to perform (Bandura, 1997). Achievement of the performance goal requires
that managers possess both. As such, motivation theory related to individual and collective
efficacy drives the recommendation. Strong self-efficacy positively influences motivation, while
perceived collective efficacy fosters a group’s motivational commitment to mission (Bandura,
2000; Pajares, 2006). Collective efficacy is more than the sum of individual members’ efficacy.
It is an “emergent, group-level property” (Bandura, 2000, p. 76) that is influenced by others and
built through transformational leadership (Dussault, Payette, & Leroux, 2008; Jones et al., 2005;
139

Miller et al., 2006). Specifically, goal-directed practice coupled with meaningful feedback and
observation of credible models fuels efficacy at each requisite level (Pajares, 2006). The
recommendation then is to use existing manager and senior leader performance as the source to
boost individual and collective belief. First, feedback delivered from leaders to managers will
explicitly link managers’ mindsets with performed skill sets. Second, managers will observe their
peers performing behaviors that achieve goals and build group-level belief. The emphasis of the
recommendation on the pairing of mindset with skillset, passion with performance, will
ultimately increase managers’ belief in their individual and the organization’s collective
competence to achieve change goals.
Efforts to close gaps in efficacy must approach the work both from an individual and a
collective perspective. So, too, achieving the stakeholder performance goal requires belief at the
individual and the organizational levels that change is possible. Theorizing about individual
efficacy and the creation of readiness for organizational change, Armenakis et al. (1993) argue
that the degree to which individuals perceive efficacy determines the achievement of readiness.
Efficacy depends on leaders, who understand the differences between individual and group level
efficacy and effectively convince individuals to change their beliefs about change. Additionally,
Armenakis et al. (1993) claim that building collective efficacy depends as much on the change
agent, for example the senior leader, as on the broader social dynamic among the organization’s
members. As such, recommendations to achieve the stakeholder performance goal must integrate
both self and system and should specifically engage leadership in their delivery.
Managers, peers, and, in particular transformational leaders, then are antecedents of
collective efficacy (Jones et al., 2005; Miller et al., 2006; Dussault et al., 2008). In their study of
487 teachers at 40 Canadian high schools, Dussault et al. (2008) contend that transformational
140

leadership positively associates not only with collective efficacy, but also with more effective
transactional leadership. Their findings reveal that transformational behaviors are the mediating
variables that predict stronger collective efficacy. Similarly, in their study of 343 employees
across 30 organizations, Herold et al. (2008) examine the relationship between transformational
leadership, organizational members' commitment (which links to efficacy), and transactional
leadership behaviors. Their findings reveal that transformational leadership significantly and
positively relates to affective change commitment. Together, these findings support the
recommendation to integrate transformational leadership in order to drive efficacy at the
individual and group levels.
Apply the sense-seize-reconfigure model to pursue strategic change mastery. The
study’s findings reveal a mixed result with respect to goal orientation as a motivational influence
on middle manager performance at Amity University. More than seventy-one percent (71.42%)
of managers agree or strongly agree that they feel encouraged to explore change to close
performance gaps. So, too, interview data indicate that managers instinctively apply the sense-
seize-reconfigure model to their work. However, complete analysis of the results reveal that
more than intentional, institutionalized patterns, individual belief in the need for change
catalyzes manager effort toward goals. Thus, mastery-orientation presents both as a gap and an
asset. A recommendation from goal orientation theory drives innovative performance to close
this motivation gap. Yough and Anderson (2006) posit that focusing on mastery, individual
improvement, learning, and progress promotes motivation. Mastery orientation prizes learning,
understanding and active participation (Pintrich, 2003). Implementation of goal orientation
theory happens best within learning communities, where people support each other and their
shared learning goals, and where formative feedback scaffolds practitioners toward mastery
141

(Schute, 2008; Yough & Anderson, 2006). These principles suggest that connecting managers in
peer learning communities, built around explicit articulation, rehearsal, and discussion of the
sense-seize-reconfigure frame, will improve goal orientation and build performance success. The
literature on motivation theory related to goal orientation and the literature on change readiness,
specifically Teece and Pisano’s (1998) consideration of the sense-seize-reconfigure model,
support this recommendation.
Multiple studies support active participation as central to the formation of goal-oriented
motivation. Given the specific focus of this study, it is helpful to note that these same studies
support active participation as a mediating variable in the development of individual and
organizational change readiness (Cunningham et al., 2002; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002).
Cunningham et al. (2002) conclude that active jobs, where individuals participate in problem
solving, better form goal orientation and subsequent readiness. Their findings, based on sampling
from 880 healthcare staff, reveal that people in active jobs report higher levels of readiness and
more frequent participation in change projects. Additionally, people in active jobs evidence
stronger belief about their contribution to overall organizational change goals than do those in
more passive roles (Cunningham et al., 2002). Similarly in a study of 600 registered nurses,
Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) find that affective (desire) and normative (perceived obligation)
commitment developed through individual involvement at work most determines an individual’s
overall change commitment. Of particular note, their findings reveal that commitment to change,
which can be considered a type of goal orientation, a better predictor of behavioral support than
general organizational commitment (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). Thus, the literature
underscores the importance of active participation in forming commitment and securing goal
orientation, and thus supports the recommendation.
142

Finally, the literature on change readiness additionally supports the recommendation’s
deliberate emphasis on the three-part process (sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring) to close the
identified motivation gap. Again, the study’s findings reveal goal orientation within the
university is ad hoc and independent, as opposed to intentional and institutionalized. Use of the
sense-seize-reconfigure pattern not only bolsters readiness, but also offers a model that elevates
goal orientation. Change mastery requires managers to sense change, seize the moment, and
understand how to reconfigure assets to meet new challenges (Teece & Pisano, 1998). The
intentional use of this model institutionalizes patterns of performance and sparks the
development and deployment of broader organizational dynamic capabilities. (Ambrosini &
Bowman, 2009; Zollo & Winter, 2002). Ambrosini and Bowman (2009) advanced the model as a
critical dynamic capability that is essential for organizational readiness and further supports the
model’s relationship to performance mastery. In their view, the central concern is the manager’s
competence to discern what capabilities to deploy, and how and where to deploy them, which is
most critical for performance (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009). Thus, the research supports the
sense-seize-reconfigure pattern as a model that bolsters goal orientation at both the individual
and the system levels.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. Table 17 represents a complete list of the assumed organizational
influences on managerial change readiness at Amity University. Analysis of the data supported
by the literature along with Clark and Estes (2008) validate these assumed influences and
prioritize each in the achievement of the identified stakeholder performance goal. Table 17 also
identifies context-specific recommendations to facilitate performance improvement toward each
identified influence.
143

Table 17
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence
Validated
Priority

Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
The organization needs to
support a management
culture that values change.
(Cultural Model)
V Y Effective change
begins by addressing
motivation
influencers; it
ensures the group
knows why it needs
to change (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Conscious
leadership
overcomes natural
tendencies toward
inertia (Navarro &
Gallardo, 2003).

Formation of
cultural change
valence depends on
managers who value
change. (Rindova &
Kotha, 2001).
Establish a collaborative
vision for change and
ensure that managers’
espoused values align
with it.

Engage managers to
construct a broad base of
change readiness across
the organization.
The organization needs to
support ambidextrous
change management.
(Cultural Setting)

V Y Effective change
efforts ensure that
everyone has the
resources needed to
do their job (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
Ensure middle managers
have the requisite
knowledge, motivation,
job aids, and resources
to effectively and
explicitly engage in
ambidextrous
management behaviors.
The organization needs to
support a change-focused
learning environment.
(Cultural Setting)

V Y Organizational
routines, processes,
and procedures
inculcate learning
(Schultz, 2014).

Institutionalize
continuous feedback
routines among
managers that focus on
their efforts to effectuate
change
144

Table 17 continued
Effective change
efforts utilize
feedback to
determine when/if
improvement is
happening (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
The organization needs to
support managers to link
institutional vision for
change with daily routines.
(Cultural Setting)
V Y Aligning practices
and processes with
abstract ideas yields
strong, change ready
cultures (Smart &
St. John, 1996).
Effective change
efforts are
communicated
regularly and
frequently to all
stakeholders (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
Linkage of vision to
the specific, daily
change environment
influences a culture
toward change
(Tushman &
O’Reilly, 1996).
Align institutional
practices and processes
with a vision for change
readiness and use middle
managers to
communicate this in
specific, day-to-day
contexts.
Engage managers to establish a culture that values change. The data reveal two key
findings with respect to the influence of cultural models on stakeholder performance. First,
managers regard themselves and others like them as moderately open to change, but less so the
organization’s leadership. Second, managers do not perceive a pervasive change openness within
the organization. Although survey results show 52.54% of managers feel the management culture
places a moderate value on organizational change, interview data show that while managers have
positive associations with change-related concepts, they hold negative perceptions of those same
concepts across the organization. Convergent analysis of interview and survey data show that the
145

university lacks a consistent change culture. A recommendation drawn both from organizational
theory and change readiness theory stands to close the identified cultural gap. Clark and Estes
(2008) posit that effective change begins by addressing motivation influencers, in particular
belief, which they define as a mega-motivator. Given that the formation of change valence
depends on managers who believe in the value of change, and that conscious leadership
overcomes natural tendencies toward inertia, a focus on fostering belief as well as change
leadership effectiveness among managers is important to close the organizational gap (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Navarro & Gallardo, 2003; Rindova & Kotha, 2001). The recommendation,
therefore, is to establish a collaborative vision for change at Amity University the espoused
values of which align with managers’ enacted values. Their leadership will prove essential to
construct a broad base of change readiness across the organization.
Organizational design establishes the cultural models and settings required for readiness,
and leaders play an outsize role in its formation (Navarro & Gallardo, 2003; Rindova & Kotha,
2001; Senge, 1990; Soparnot, 2011). In particular, leaders advance readiness when they design
cultural models and settings that anticipate and absorb change, overcome institutional inertia, and
calibrate equilibrium (Moran & Brightman, 2001; Navarro & Gallardo, 2003; Senge, 1990).
Navarro and Gallardo (2003) argue that higher education managers, in particular, play a
meaningful role in organizational design because they operationalize the culture. Theorizing on
the importance of strategic university management in a dynamic change environment, Navarro
and Gallardo (2003) draw from the breadth of institutional theory and emerging models for
change management and propose a model for generating necessary dynamic management
capabilities. They conclude that this work, and specifically within higher education, depends
upon a continuous “renovation;” the success of which will be determined by management
146

(Navarro & Gallardo, 2003, p. 209). Similarly, Soparnot (2011) espouses the necessity of
managerial capacity for persuasion as central to mobilizing an organization’s change posture. His
case study focused on observation of an historic company considered change capable. The
findings identify three dimensions of change capacity: context, process, and learning. Within
each, Soparnot (2011) argues that change capacity depends as much upon management as upon
the initial change conditions. Thus, the literature and research together support the mediating role
of managers in the successful formation of change ready culture through their influence within
the broader cultural model.
Use managers to link processes and practice with vision. The data support important
findings about the cultural settings at Amity University that most influence stakeholder
performance. The influence of managers as connectors lies at the heart of this study’s conceptual
framework and is therefore the focus of the recommendation. The findings reveal that the
university inconsistently uses managers to create change readiness. The determination of this
influence as a need is among the most significant of the study. While 47% of managers agreed or
strongly agreed that managers like themselves effectively link senior leadership with frontline
employees, the data further reveal that the levels of agreement drop and the variance increases
when managers consider their performance of specific manager-as-connector behaviors.
Similarly, interview findings reveal that managers generally carry positive associations
about the possibility for their involvement in change. However, as with many of the study’s
knowledge and motivation findings, the strategies that stand to close such gaps are ad hoc and
inconsistently practiced. Again, a recommendation rooted in organizational change theory and
the literature on change readiness stands to close this critical gap. Moreover, when effectively
implemented, the recommendation will address other necessary cultural setting influences such
147

as management style and learning. The readiness literature supports that alignment of practice
and processes with more abstract ideas relative to change yields stronger, more change ready
cultures (Smart & St. John, 1996). Along similar lines, Clark and Estes (2008) argue that
effective change efforts must be regularly communicated to stakeholders. Managers are key to
this work. The linkage of vision to the specific, daily environment moves a culture toward
change (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). Thus, the recommendation is to align institutional practices
and processes with a vision for change readiness and use middle managers to communicate this
in specific, day-to-day contexts.
Organizational architecture that uses managers-as-connectors engineers the cultural
settings that are most likely to support change readiness (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008; Rindova &
Kotha, 2011; Taylor & Helfat, 2009; Teece et al., 1997; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). Managers
influence cultural settings and create crucial coherence within organizations. Theorizing on the
interplay between assets, middle management, and the dynamic capability of ambidexterity,
Taylor and Helfat (2009) offer a framework that elevates managerial work to create and maintain
essential linkages. They find that effective managerial work ultimately enables organizations to
achieve change, while maintaining their current performance. Taylor and Helfat (2009) then
apply their proposed model against two case study examples from the technology industry. Their
findings reveal organizational design that emphasizes managerial linking best facilitates the
construction of cultural settings that influence organizations in the direction of change. This
builds on the work of Rindova and Kotha (2001) and their study of organizational form and
function on dynamic evolution within organizations. In-depth, inductive case analysis of high-
tech firms Yahoo! and Excite reveal that organizational form drives the development of the
capabilities most necessary for “continuous morphing,”(Rindova & Kotha, 2001, p. 1274).
148

Rindova and Kotha (2001) suggest this is a condition most necessary for the creation of change
readiness. Thus, both empirical and theoretical literature supports the use of managers-as-
connectors to shape cultural settings, and this proves particularly necessary in the creation of
readiness.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) provides the
framework for the study’s proposed implementation and evaluation plan. The model prescribes a
four-part process to support the design, implementation, and evaluation of effective learning
experiences. In this way, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) complement the work of Clark and
Estes (2008), on which this study stands. Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis offers a
descriptive approach to defining and understanding performance. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2016) help practitioners navigate and close these gaps. The four levels are: (1) reaction, (2)
learning, (3) behavior, and (4) results. Distinctively, during the planning phase of a particular
program the model urges consideration of these models in reverse order. A brief review of the
levels is useful as this section begins.
Level 4 invites consideration of those outcomes or preferred top level results, for example
the organizational benefits and cost-effectiveness of those outcomes, that prompted an
organization to run a given program in the first place. Thinking about Level 4 first keeps the
focus on what matters most, the ideal outcome that participants must absolutely aspire to
achieve. From this clear understanding of results, Level 3 generates those critical behaviors,
required drives, and on-the-job learning that will have the strongest impact on the desired results.
Then, Level 2 details the learning, or knowledge, skill, attitude, confidence, and commitment,
149

participants must acquire. Finally, Level 1 measures participant engagement, relevance, and
satisfaction with the program. Combined, the four levels serve as a scaffold from which
successful program design, implementation, and evaluation launch.
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
Private, nonprofit colleges and universities like Amity University face acute and
accelerated change that threatens their viability. The futures of these institutions depend on their
capacity to achieve change readiness, but not merely for its own sake. Amity University needs to
innovate its management culture toward change readiness only to achieve its founding purpose,
which is the whole-person education of learners for professional and personal success in both the
Church and the world. There is no other reason to embark on this work unless it serves that
purpose. To this end, Amity University pursues an organizational goal to establish baseline
organizational change readiness through ongoing integrated learning that trains 100% of
academic and operations administration, management, and staff to identify, embrace, and
maximize change opportunities (partnership, merger, and expansion). Achievement of this goal
stands to close critical organizational gaps that most threaten Amity University’s validity,
relevance, and survival.
Management occupies a critical role in the achievement of organizational change
readiness (Adner et al., 2003; Andreeva & Ritala, 2016; Eisenhardt et al., 2000; Rindova &
Kotha, 2001; Teece et al., 1997; Zollo & Winter, 2002). For this reason, middle management is
the stakeholder group of focus for this study. Their specific performance goal—that 25% of
middle managers will demonstrate the knowledge, values, and behaviors necessary to effectuate
change in the organization—most mediates Amity University’s achievement of its global goal
and thus warrants the attention of this innovation study.
150

The successful design and implementation of the study’s recommendations will deliver
results that achieve the organizational performance goal, which identifies an institution-wide
competency to identify, embrace, and maximize change opportunities (partnership, merger, and
expansion). Ideally, such an increase in partnership, merger, and expansion will countermand
those variables that most threaten the viability of 21st century nonprofit colleges and universities
and will achieve enrollment growth, revenue growth, and operational efficiency and profitability.
Thus, Table 18 displays the external and internal key performance indicators that evidence these
results.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 18 shows the Level 4 internal and external outcomes, metrics, and methods of
evaluation and reporting that will contribute to the achievement of the organizational change
readiness performance goal. These extend the performance goal’s identified outcomes for
partnership, merger and expansion, and temper those variables that most contribute to the decline
and closure of nonprofit colleges and universities.
Table 18
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)

External Outcomes

Increase external academic and
institutional partnerships.
Number of academic and
institutional formal partnerships
as defined by potential or
actualized articulation
agreements and/or
memorandums of
understanding.
Quarterly report by the Chief
Strategy Officer
151

Table 18 continued
Grow market share.

Number of applicants within key
market segments (demographic).

Total number of credits sold
across all student types*

Total 12 month unduplicated
count of enrolled students*

Weekly marketing, admissions,
and enrollment reports

Quarterly credit sold report

Annual Key Performance
Indicator (KPI) Scorecard (fall
census, close of fiscal, Nov.)

Sustain and boost stakeholder
perception of brand health.

Percentage of brand awareness
and positive perception within
denomination.

Number of corporate donors.

Historic and Projected Gifts and
Donations*

Annual brand perception report

Quarterly KPI Scorecard

Quarterly KPI Scorecard

Internal Outcomes

Enhance employee affective
commitment.
% of engaged employees on
overall engagement index of
Q12
Annual KPI Scorecard (August)
Maintain and increase
operational profitability.
Operating margin ratio:
Indicates whether the operating
income is covering operating
expenses.
Quarterly KPI Scorecard
Maintain or improve CFI score
equal to or greater than 3.0.
Composite Financial Index:
Primary Reserve Ratio, Viability
Ratio, Return on Net Assets
Ratio, and Net Operating
Revenue Ratio
Annual CFO Report (May)
Outperform operating
margins/CFI of key competitors.
Operating margin ratio:
Indicates whether the operating
income is covering operating
expenses.

Composite Financial Index:
Primary Reserve Ratio, Viability
Ratio, Return on Net Assets
Ratio, and Net Operating
Revenue Ratio
Quarterly KPI Scorecard

Annual CFO Report (May)

152

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. There are four critical behaviors that middle managers must do to
maximize the top level organizational result, which is to establish baseline organizational change
readiness as managers demonstrate the knowledge, values, and behaviors necessary to effectuate
change in the organization. First, Middle Managers must transfer new knowledge about change
capabilities to solve known performance gaps in novel ways. Second, they will demonstrate
proficient performance of the behaviors most necessary to the creation of change readiness.
Third, middle managers must consciously apply the sense-seize-reconfigure change model.
Finally, middle managers must prove able to persuade employees to support change by linking
the institutional change vision to daily work routines. Table 19 outlines the metrics, methods,
and timing that demonstrate these critical behaviors.
Table 19
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metrics Methods Timing
Middle managers
transfer new knowledge
about change
capabilities to solve
known performance
gaps in novel ways.
Number of achieved
institution and division
priorities (strategic
objectives)
Number of achieved
metric goals (university
key performance
indicators and division
measures)
Reporting from the
Chief Strategy Officer
that tracks the status of
institutional and
division priorities.

Reporting from the
Chief Strategy Officer
and Office of
Institutional
Effectiveness that
tracks key performance
indicators and division
metrics.
Annual
153

Table 19 continued
Middle managers
proficiently perform the
behaviors most
necessary to the
creation of change
readiness.

Frequency of change
behaviors
(communication,
influence strategies,
personal attributes)

Reporting from middle
managers through their
supervisors as part of
the standard quarterly
review.

Quarterly
Middle managers
consciously apply the
sense-seize-reconfigure
change model.
Cost of Instruction

Number of approved
academic program
proposals

Operating margin ratio
Reporting from the
Chief Financial Officer
and Office of
Institutional
Effectiveness that
tracks COI annually.

Reporting from the
Provost that tracks the
program proposal
process through
Academic Council.
Reporting from the
Business Office and
Chief Financial Officer
as part of the annual
key performance
indicators.
Annual
Middle managers
effectively persuade
employees to support
change.
Number of employees
who believe their jobs
specifically contribute
to achievement of the
organization’s vision
for change.
Reporting from
employees through
their managers as part
of the standard
employee review.

Responses to the
Gallup Q12, question 8,
“Does the
mission/purpose of
your company make
you feel your job is
important?”
Quarterly
Required drivers. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) advise that a package of drivers is
necessary to produce the critical behaviors and sustain them over time. Required drivers
reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward critical behaviors. Table 20 displays drivers that will
catalyze Middle Manager behaviors toward the stakeholder performance goal and the
154

organization’s top-level result. Reinforcers rely heavily on job aids, training, and education for
middle managers that serve to close factual, procedural, and conceptual knowledge gaps that are
also essential to facilitate necessary motivation that will animate performance. Job aids include
materials that make plain important key performance indicator data necessary for middle
manager performance and help to support their application of the sense, seize, reconfigure model
of change management. Education tackles broader knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences and is supplemented by training specific to change performance, behaviors, and
attitudes. This education and related training is then further reinforced through ongoing feedback
that is delivered through coaching sessions. Encouragement relies most on opening up access
between middle managers and the President’s senior leadership team as well as between middle
managers and transformational leaders within the organization who are known to possess and
model change readiness. This approach to encouragement supports the necessity to intentionally
leverage managers as connectors within the larger organizational system. Rewards that appeal to
middle managers include public recognition and access to institutional thought leaders. Specific
praise as well as opportunities to present mastery performance are meaningful rewards in an
academic context. Finally, the methods for measuring performance of the identified critical
behaviors lean heavily on established university metrics including the institution’s key
performance indicators. Thus, monitoring mechanisms rely on the Administrative Council,
Academic Council, and the University Strategy Team to conduct systematic monthly, bi-annual,
and annual review of those metrics.

155

Table 20
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method Timing Critical Behavior (Table 14)

Reinforcing

Job aid for Middle Managers
that maps the university’s and
their department's KPI goals and
current performance toward the
same.
Quarterly 1 ,2
Provide training for Middle
Managers about change
capabilities best suited to close
performance gaps.
Annually (summer term) 1, 2
Middle managers receive
feedback and coaching about
their performance of change
capabilities, as well as their
general change behaviors and
attitudes.
Quarterly 1, 2
Provide education for Middle
Managers on how to identify,
select, and perform behaviors
that create readiness within
themselves, other individuals,
and teams.
Annually (summer term) 1, 2, 4
Job aid for Middle Managers
that maps the sense, seize,
reconfigure model.

Annually 1, 2, 3
Conduct training for Middle
Managers that introduces and
develops manager understanding
and use of the sense, seize,
reconfigure model.
Annually 1, 2, 3
Middle managers extend to their
teams coaching and feedback
focused on change readiness
behaviors, attitudes, and
performance.

Ongoing 2, 4
156

Table 20 continued

Encouraging

Middle managers meet
periodically in division groups
with the President and Chief
Strategy Officer to discuss
strategic-change initiatives and
how to participate.
2x per calendar year 1, 2, 4
Middle managers meet with
coaches, who enthusiastically
connect values to the university
mission and encourage middle
managers in their work.
Ongoing 1, 2, 4
Middle managers are
intentionally invited to observe
senior leaders deliver behaviors
that build group-level belief.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4
The President periodically
addresses all university Middle
Managers and non-faculty
employees in a town hall format.
Quarterly 4
Periodic communications from
the Chief Strategy Officer
directly communicates to
Middle Managers performance
toward the espoused change
vision.
Monthly 2, 4

Rewarding

High performing Middle
Managers are identified by their
supervisors to participate in one-
to-one mentoring opportunities
with senior leaders designed to
encourage and coach.
Annually 1, 2, 3, 4
President publicly acknowledges
Middle Manager efforts and
performance.
Ongoing 2, 4
157

Table 20 continued
High performing Middle
Managers are identified by their
peer feedback group to present
successful change initiatives to
the President's Administrative
Council.

Quarterly

1, 2, 3, 4

Monitoring

The Administrative Council and
the University Strategy Team
regularly review the status of
institutional and division
priorities.
Monthly 1, 3
The Administrative Council and
the University Strategy Team
regularly review key
performance indicators and
division metrics.
Monthly 1, 3
The Administrative Council,
Academic Council, and
University Strategy Team
regularly review performance of
Cost of Instruction and
Academic Program Proposal
count.
2x per fiscal year 1, 2, 3
The Administrative Council and
University Strategy Team
regularly review employee
results on engagement surveys.
Annually 4
Organizational support. Leadership behavior and capacity for change most influences
employee change commitment and organizational readiness (Gelaidan, et al., 2018; Herold, et
al., 2008; Taylor & Helfat, 2009). So, too organizational structure prevents or promotes readiness
(Bennebroek Gravenhorst, et al., 2003). Thus, implicit to the effectiveness of the key drivers is
the variable of the organization; its culture, systems and norms, structure and processes facilitate
the eventual performance of the critical behaviors toward the stakeholder performance goal.
158

Schein (2010) articulates culture as a dynamic “pattern or system of beliefs, values, and
behavioral norms” (p. 6). As such, the success of the organization to reach its global goal for
change readiness depends on each stakeholder group achieving performance goals. These goals
interrelate. For Middle Managers to demonstrate the knowledge, values, and behaviors necessary
to effectuate organizational change, senior leaders must embrace their own goal to master change
leadership. Senior leaders can influence and persuade the larger system, and thereby recast the
organization’s overarching cultural model. This transformative work buoys the effort of
managers in discrete cultural settings as they initiate the behaviors most favorable to effectuate
readiness.
The formation of conscious change leadership at the senior level enables the drivers in
Table 20, which in turn facilitate middle manager performance of critical behaviors. In
particular, senior leadership must take seriously how middle managers perceive support. The
data reveal that while generally managers agree that they and managers like them are open to
change, their overall degree of agreement drops when asked about their opportunities to voice
concerns about change, whether university leaders articulate a consistent vision, and whether
university leaders support change. There exists a variance across managers with respect to their
perceptions about leadership support. Stabilizing this variance countermands the volatility of the
environment and helps to ensure that the organization resists the tendency toward inertia. For this
reason, the President and the Administrative Council should work with managers to establish a
collaborative vision for change and ensure that managers’ espoused values align with it. Then,
leadership must engage managers to construct a broad base of change readiness across the
organization. Key to this work is the use of managers as connectors.
159

Organizations achieve readiness when managers connect abstract beliefs and values with
practice and performance. The achievement of the global goal depends on the use of managers to
create linkages between the cultural models for change with the daily settings wherein that vision
resides. This requires intentional design. The President and the Administrative Council must
work with managers to create integration across the organizational culture. For this reason, most
of this chapter’s recommendations bring together senior leadership alongside managers. As the
study’s findings evidenced, too often, the use of managers as connectors is irregular and
sporadic. The President and the Administrative Council must design intentional, institutionalized
use for managers as connectors in order to truly shape the organization toward the stated goal.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. This list articulates essential learning goals for Amity University middle
managers in order to effectuate the critical behaviors outlined in Table 19. These learning goals
align with the validated gaps defined in Chapter 4.
Upon completion of the program detailed in the following section, Amity University
middle managers will:
1. Understand the performance gaps between where the organization is and where it needs
to be, and the change capabilities required to close the gap. (K - Factual Knowledge)
2. Distinguish between the levels of change readiness, commitment, efficacy, and urgency
within individual employees and the organization as a whole, and appreciate the ways
that these factors interleave to intensify readiness. (K - Conceptual Knowledge)
3. Perform the behaviors that most influence the factors that create change readiness within
individuals and teams. (K - Procedural Knowledge)
4. Believe that the effort, emotion, and energy of change are worth the cost. (Cost Value)
160

5. Believe in their individual and in the organization’s collective competence to achieve
change goals. (M - Collective Efficacy)
6. Work toward strategic change mastery. (M - Goal Orientation)
7. Generate with senior leadership a management culture that values change. (O – Cultural
Model)
8. Construct linkages between institutional vision for change and daily routines. (O -
Cultural Setting)
Program. The central role of education is to equip people to handle change (Clark & Estes,
2008). Thus, a robust, thorough education program for middle managers stands to close the
knowledge, motivation, and ultimately the organizational gaps, which the study validates. More
than merely change management training, this program aims to influence the conceptual model
which anchors the study’s findings. That is, the program uses the sense, seize, and reconfigure
pattern to shape the discrete cultural settings across the university. It relies on the use of middle
managers as connectors to the front line work of the firm thereby influencing the values and
vision for change and recalibrating the institution’s overarching cultural model. Figure 13
displays this model.
161

Figure 13. Interaction of KMO influences on stakeholder goal performance.
The program is an ecosystem of solutions. It equips middle managers with rich understanding
of change readiness and activates them toward its formation and management. The program’s
nucleus is the summer Leader Lab. Here, the university invests in its managers through a two-
night, three-day intensive experience that develops them to acquire, integrate, and apply
necessary change skills. The summer experience carries into the regular flow of manager work
through specific, ongoing group coaching, peer feedback loops, and individual exercises.
Additionally, the senior leadership team annually identifies high potential middle managers, who
experience a specific mentoring track, which includes enhanced observation, access to
leadership, and participation in upper level leadership activities related to strategic change
initiatives. The entirety of the program rests on the core principles of active participation and
access, delivered through an array of strategies from leaders to managers, manager-to-manager
peer interactions, and manager-to-employee connections.
162

Evaluation of the components of learning. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) identify five
components of effective learning: knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment. A
learning event is a success when learners demonstrate each. Table 21 outlines the methods of
evaluation for these five dimensions as part of the program detailed in the above section. In some
cases, evaluation occurs formatively during the learning event. In other cases, evaluation is
summative and occurs at the event’s completion. Collectively, these evaluation methods enable
Amity University to define the degree to which middle managers achieve the necessary
knowledge, skill, and motivation in order to achieve the identified performance goal.
Table 21
Evaluation of the Program Learning Components
Methods/Activities Timing
Declarative Knowledge, “I know it.”
Review of the KPI job aid Summative check during the summer training event
Knowledge checks during training Formative checks throughout the training intensive;
formative checks during group coaching sessions,
mentoring check-ins, and peer cohort discussions
Role play and simulation during training Formative checks and discussion during the training
intensive
Group coaching discussions Summative conversations at the end of the training
intensive; ongoing formative discussions throughout the
year

Teach back within peer feedback
discussions
Ongoing formative discussions throughout the year
Action plan personal reflection Summative guided reflection at the conclusion of the
training intensive captured in personal journals
Procedural Skills, “I can do it right now.”
Demonstration of ability to integrate new
learning with prior knowledge
Throughout the training intensive; within group coaching,
mentoring check-ins, and peer cohort discussions
throughout the year
163

Table 21 continued
Demonstration of behaviors that create
readiness within individuals and team

Throughout the training intensive; within group coaching,
mentoring check-ins, and peer cohort discussions
throughout the year
Attitude, “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Facilitator observations during training
intensive
Throughout the training sessions (formative) and shared as
key closing summative observations in an intentional
closure exercise
Coach observations during group
discussions and mentoring sessions
Shared formatively and summatively as part of every group
discussion event and mentoring event
Retrospective pre- and post-program
assessment
At the end of the training intensive
Scaled survey questions Annual change readiness KPI tool conducted at the end of
the academic year, in advance of each summer training
intensive
Confidence, “I think I can do it on the job.”
Facilitator observations during training
intensive
Throughout the training sessions (formative) and shared as
key closing summative observations in an intentional
closure exercise
Confidence checks (discussion-based)
during the training intensive
At regular intervals throughout the training intensive, the
facilitator will guide the group in open discussion focused
on confidence checks of how they are receiving and
thinking about the content
Coach observations during group
discussions and mentoring sessions
Shared formatively and summatively as part of every group
discussion event and mentoring event
Retrospective pre- and post-program
assessment
At the end of the training intensive
Scaled survey questions Annual change readiness KPI tool conducted at the end of
the academic year, in advance of each summer training
intensive
Commitment, “I will do it on the job.”
Group discussion As part of the final, summative closure discussion at the
training intensive

Middle managers will share the action
plan they produce as part of their self-
reflection
Within assigned peer cohort groups
Retrospective pre- and post-program
assessment
At the end of the training intensive
164

Table 21 continued
Scaled survey questions

Annual change readiness KPI tool conducted at the end of
the academic year, in advance of each summer training
intensive
Level 1: Reaction
Level 1 emphasizes participant reactions to learning events and experiences. Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick (2016) identify three dimensions to measuring reaction: engagement, relevance,
and customer (participant) satisfaction. The University will assess each efficiently and promptly
so as to discern how participants view the quality of the experience, including the content, delivery
method, and facilitators. Table 22 lists the methods and tools Amity University will use to evaluate
middle manager reaction to the proposed program. These methods rely on formative assessment
so that course corrections can be implemented during the program delivery timeframe.
Table 22
Components to Measure Program Reactions
Methods/Tools Timing
Engagement
Facilitator Observation During training intensive
Dedicated observer During training intensive, make use of leadership’s outside
executive coach to partner with the facilitator for this
purpose
Pulse checks During transitions between topics at the training intensive
Program evaluation At the end of the training intensive and at the midpoint
during the year (group discussions, mentoring, and peer
cohort groups)
Relevance
Facilitator observation During training intensive
Pulse checks During transitions between topics at the training intensive

165

Table 22 continued
Program evaluation

At the end of the training intensive and at the midpoint
during the year (group discussions, mentoring, and peer
cohort groups)

Coach observations during group
discussions and mentoring sessions
During these sessions
Customer Satisfaction
Program evaluation At the end of the training intensive and at the midpoint
during the year (group discussions, mentoring, and peer
cohort groups)
Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. At the end of the summer
training intensive, the university will conduct a summative evaluation of Level 1 reactions to the
program and Level 2 learning (knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment). This
evaluation will answer two simple questions: did middle managers acquire the intended
knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment necessary to achieve the goal, and was
the program experience enjoyable, engaging, and relevant. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016)
stress the importance of focusing on simplicity and timing when constructing effective Level 1
evaluation tools. These values equally inform Level 2 evaluation. Simplicity underscores the
need to conserve evaluation resources for more complex and important levels. In short,
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) urge organizations not to overdo Level 1 and 2 evaluation.
Thus, the summative evaluation for Levels 1 and 2 focus narrowly on those questions that Amity
University will track, report, and work to improve over time. Appendix D presents the
recommended Participant Post-Program Evaluation Form for use immediately following the
summer intensive.
166

Delayed for a period after the program implementation. The proposed education
program launches with the summer intensive experience. A robust learning ecosystem surrounds
and supports managers as they transfer the training and learning from the intensive and practice
it in their daily work. Summative evaluation that is delayed after the program launch offers the
university important insight into both the extended impact of the intensive and the ongoing
coaching, mentoring, and peer feedback loops that support and sustain it. The university will
administer two surveys six months into the program (from the time of the summer intensive).
These surveys evaluate performance across each of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) four
levels. Middle managers will report their continued levels of reaction (Level 1) and learning
(Level 2), while also assessing their behaviors (Level 3). Senior leaders, including those in the
role of ongoing cohort coaches, will evaluate behavior (Level 3) so as to drive continuous
performance monitoring and improvement toward organizational results (Level 4). Appendix E
provides the recommended Participant Post-Program Delayed Evaluation Form and the
Executive Leadership and Chief Strategy Officer Delayed Evaluation Form.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The recommended evaluation process will yield a significant amount of data; the
persistent, practical inquiry of which is necessary for program success. Done well, inquiry
facilitates new insight, practice, and performance. Inquiry enables organizations to discover and
sustain critical behaviors. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) similarly stress the need for simple,
useful, credible data analysis to determine whether a given program meets expectations, and if
not, why not and if so, why. Therefore, a plan for data analysis and reporting is necessary to
ensure complete program achievement.
167

Data alone do not support better decisions or prove successful outcomes. Rather, data are
useful when practitioners conduct ongoing inquiry and use data to influence program efforts and
maximize results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Effective inquiry is specific and narrowly
applied. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) suggest that effective analysis is best kept simple.
They propose the use of three key questions: 1) Does … meet expectations? 2) If not, why not?
3) If so, why? There is not a magic number of questions, but practitioners are wise to narrowly
focus questions when framing their inquiry.
Specific points in the proposed education program’s timeline lend themselves well to
ongoing data analysis and reporting. Following the summer training intensive, the Chief Strategy
Officer (CSO), with support from the Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE), will conduct an
analysis of the data collected through the Participant Post-Program Evaluation. Senior
Administration will receive a report (Post Intensive Executive Report), which managers,
including participants of the program, will also receive in brief. The report will address program
implementation, participant engagement, and initial progress toward learning goals. Two sample
visuals the CSO/OIE may produce from the data following the summer intensive elevate the
overall mean scores of participants pre/post intensive and the individual learning score pre/post
intensive (see Appendix F).
At the six month mark, another round of evaluation will give opportunity for further
analysis. Again, the CSO with OIE will analyze data collected through both the Participant Post-
Program Delayed Evaluation Form and the Direct Executive Delayed Evaluation Form. The
subsequent report (Mid-year Executive Report) will focus on program implementation (reaction),
participant engagement, continued progress toward learning goals and improvement over time,
as well as performance of identified critical behaviors and initial analysis of movement toward
168

top-level results. Three additional samples illustrate how the CSO/OIE may communicate results
to executive leadership as well as middle managers, including program participants (see
Appendix G). The samples include a visual that incorporates the results of the Direct Executive’s
assessment of manager learning alongside the manager’s self-assessed learning throughout the
program. Such combined data presentation provides a rich source for shared analysis and
conversation.
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) effectively
undergirds the design, implementation, and evaluation of the KMO-focused program
recommendations to achieve the stakeholder performance goal. The model broadens the
usefulness of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework that drives this study.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) offer scholar-practitioners a road map with which to plot the
journey across validated KMO gaps. In essence, Clark and Estes (2008) offer descriptive
analysis of a particular problem, in this case nascent change readiness within 21st century higher
education, while Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) facilitate prescriptive analysis leading to the
creation and demonstration of valuable training that closes performance gaps.
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) suggests important
steps across four levels. In this study, Level 4 shows those internal and external outcomes,
metrics, and evaluative methods that contribute most clearly to the organization’s goal
attainment. Level 3, then defines four critical behaviors necessary to maximize these top level
results. Level 2 sharpens the particular learning goals necessary to facilitate the known critical
behaviors. From these, the study recommends a particular program that will assist middle
managers to attain the learning goals and to demonstrate the requisite levels of knowledge, skills,
169

attitude, confidence, and commitment necessary to sustain performance and organizational
success. Finally, Level 1 establishes useful measures to assess middle manager engagement and
satisfaction with the proposed program. With this framework, the study proposes evidence-
based, actionable steps and links these steps with an evaluation plan. The robust fusion of
models, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) with Clark and Estes (2008), offers an innovative
solution to the identified problem on which this study rests, while specifically targeting Amity
University’s organizational and stakeholder performance goals. As such, the proposed program
offers a clear pathway for institutional viability within the volatile higher education change
landscape.
Limitations and Delimitations
Chapter Three presents several limitations and delimitations of this study. With respect to
limitations, cultural influences outside of the researcher’s control certainly shape not only the
willingness of middle managers to participate, but also their overall posture toward change at a
given moment in the organization’s history. The researcher’s choices in the study’s design result
in delimitations including limits to sample variation, possible truncation of data collection given
the brief collection timeframe, and the single-minded focus on innovation, which subjugates
other valid approaches to performance goal achievement. Certainly, limiting the study population
narrowly to include middle managers leaves out other critical populations such as senior
executives, front line staff, and others, who are essential to change readiness and organizational
success. Finally, the researcher’s positionality unquestionably influences data, and particularly
the data collected through personal interviews. The researcher maintained disciplined reflection
throughout both collection and data analysis through the use of continuous reflective and analytic
memo writing in an effort to balance this obvious delimitation. Worth noting, the startling
170

transparency that interview participants exhibited, and of which the researcher took particular
notes, suggests that while her role could not be ignored, it did not overly inhibit openness within
the interviews. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the proposed plan to achieve the organization and
stakeholder goals will qualify the potential effects of these limitations and delimitations.
Additionally, the limitations and delimitations point to worthwhile areas for future research.
Future Research
The study’s limitation and delimitations open pathways for future research. Certainly,
analysis of other middle managers working in other sectors would expand the generalizability of
the findings. So, too the success of the recommendations and the proposed program remain to be
seen. A follow-up evaluation study within Amity University would deepen the credibility of the
proposed plan, as would evaluation of the program’s effectiveness in another organization.
Of greater interest, the study’s findings and recommendations open several areas for
future research. First, the literature on readiness speaks to the particular influence of
transformational behaviors and leadership styles on an employee’s commitment to change
(Gelaidan et al., 2018; Herold et al., 2008; Scott et al., 2008). This study drew questions about
the nature of the dynamic between transactional and transformational management behaviors
into sharper relief. For example: can managers achieve transformational success without first
possessing total transactional competence? Throughout the analysis process, mastery of content
area and field expertise emerged as threads of interest. Participants who exhibited these traits by
and large seemed more change ready. This warrants more thorough research. Second, the
interplay not only within a particular layer of a system, but between layers of a system is a place
for further inquiry. In particular, the change acumen and readiness levels of a manager’s
immediate supervisor seems to be a compelling variable in one’s change readiness and change
171

performance. Van de Ven and Poole (1995) describe change as being nested across various
levels within an organization, and so the question becomes, which layers of the nest most acutely
press against the other, and to what outcome? Finally, the literature on change readiness supports
that individual development is critical for overall organizational change success and that certain
attributes mediate an employee’s reaction to change (Dasborough et al., 2015; Nordin, 2011;
Vakola, 2014). What are the unique markers that indicate an individual possesses or is
predisposed to possess those attributes and attitudes most necessary for readiness within highly
volatile change settings? Based on the data this study amassed, one of those attributes seems to
be a proclivity toward intrapersonal reflection. Time and again, interview participants mentioned
personal habits for reflection, metacognition, and spiritual reflexivity as they explained their
answers. While not the immediate focus of this study, the consistency of this perspective within a
highly volatile, mission based context warrants deeper analysis.
Conclusion
Private, nonprofit colleges and universities face acute and accelerated economic,
technological, demographic, and social value change. Amity University sits squarely in this
challenged context. Certainly, the achievement of a positive long term future depends on the
University’s ability to overcome challenges to enrollment, revenues, and expenses, which are the
typical culprits that erode the historic success of many institutions. Amity University also
recognizes the importance of improving its change culture and management, and has established
organizational goals that drive toward this outcome. While the achievement of these goals
requires effort from all stakeholders, the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences that
impel or inhibit middle manager performance have particular significance on the organization’s
success. To truly achieve its best preferred future, Amity University must overcome the usual
172

threats and also, and as this study concludes, innovate its practice to create the conditions
necessary for change readiness. To that end, this study pursued two questions:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that influence middle
managers at Amity University to embrace and effectuate change in their organization?
2. What are the recommendations for innovative organizational practice in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources that will enable middle managers to
demonstrate these attributes?
The study rests on three conceptual frameworks. First, it relies on the Clark and Estes’
(2008) knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) gap analysis model. Use of the KMO
model elevates and validates through data analysis the disparity between middle managers’
current effort and the goal. Second, the study establishes from the literature a unique conceptual
framework and applies it to propose the interaction of the assumed KMO influences on middle
manager goal performance. The study’s conceptual framework sorts key findings from existing
literature on change readiness into the Clark and Estes’ (2008) model and guides the study’s
approach to data collection and analysis. Finally, the study draws from the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (2016) to produce innovation in pursuit of the stakeholder performance goal.
The study’s data collection and analysis reveal a set of empirically based findings critical
to the influence of knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) culture on middle manager
performance at Amity University. This robust slate validates each assumed influence and
identifies it as either a need to be met or an asset to be leveraged in the pursuit of the stakeholder
goal. Ultimately, the study’s findings supply necessary support for a rich set of recommendations
that stand to innovate the organization’s performance within the dynamic landscape of 21
st

century higher education.
173

The recommendations answer the study’s second question. With the findings distilled
through analysis, KMO influences pair with established principles of learning, motivation, and
organizational theory. Application of the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) organizes the
recommendations into a clear, prescriptive plan that achieves the training mandate within the
identified stakeholder goal, and does so within a framework that elevates the ultimate
organizational goal toward which the innovation must lead.
Certainly, change remains the norm in the 21
st
century higher education environment.
While multiple theories, strategies, attitudes, and skills are necessary to mitigate and manage it,
foremost is this: colleges and universities risk their futures when they fail to prepare for it.
Readiness, more than any other specific package of skills or abilities is the primary mindset that
organizations must create at every level. Acute and accelerated change requires institutional
adaptation, often with startling immediacy. The degree to which institutions can build their
overall readiness in advance is, therefore a vital, sustainable, life-extending competitive
advantage. At the beginning, this study defined change readiness as the sum of an organization’s
commitment to and belief in its capacity to change. The findings, however establish a much more
nuanced, multi-layered definition. Change readiness is a unique, carefully worked calculus that
depends on an organization’s ability to create and to sustain a system that engenders, elevates,
and energizes the discrete, individual change capabilities its people possess or are predisposed to
possess. Readiness is the essential posture an organization chooses to strike; a bearing that relies
on individual and collective skill, know-how, attitude, and, perhaps most necessary in these
times, fierceness of will.
174

References
Adner, R., Helfat, C., Hoopes, D., Madsen, T., & Walker, G. (2003). Corporate effects and
dynamic managerial capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 1011–1025.
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60.
Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2009). What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful
construct in strategic management? International Journal of Management Reviews,
11(1), 29–49.
Amity University (pseudonym). (2019).
Andreeva, T., & Ritala, P. (2016). What are the sources of capability dynamism?
Reconceptualizing dynamic capabilities from the perspective of organizational change.
Baltic Journal of Management, 11(3), 238–259.
Armenakis, A., Harris, S., & Mossholder, K. (1993). Creating Readiness for Organizational
Change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681–703.
Astin, A., & Lee, C. (1971). The invisible colleges; a profile of small, private colleges with
limited resources. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/
metacognition/.
Baker, Vicki L., & Baldwin, Roger G. (2015). A Case Study of Liberal Arts Colleges in the 21st
Century: Understanding Organizational Change and Evolution in Higher Education.
Innovative Higher Education, 40(3), 247-261.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9, 75–78.
175

Beer, M., Eisenstadt, R.A., & Spector, B. (1990). Why change programs don't produce change:
Effective corporate renewal starts at the bottom, through informal efforts to solve
business problems. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 158-66.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change.(statistical data included). Harvard
Business Review, 78(3), 133.
Bennebroek Gravenhorst, K., Werkman, R., & Boonstra, J. (2003). The change capacity of
organisations: general assessment and five configurations. Applied Psychology, 52(1),
83–105.
Brown, S., & Eisenhardt, K. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory
and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34.
Butler, M. (2003). Managing from the inside out: Drawing on “receptivity” to explain variation
in strategy implementation. British Journal of Management, 14, S47–S60.
Carpenter, S. K. (2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 21, 279–283.
Chingos, M. (2017). Don't forget private, non-profit colleges. The Brookings Institution.
Chrusciel, D. (2006). Considerations of emotional intelligence (EI) in dealing with change
decision management. Management Decision, 44(5), 644-657.
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Conner, D., & Patterson, R. (1982). Building commitment to organizational change. Training
and Development Journal, 36(4), 18.
Corrêa, R. O., Bueno, E. V., Kato, H. T., & Silva, L. M. D. O. (2019). Dynamic managerial
176

capabilities: Scale development and validation. Managerial and Decision Economics,
40(1), 3-15.
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Cunningham, C., Woodward, C., Shannon, H., Macintosh, J., Lendrum, B., Rosenbloom, D., &
Brown, J. (2002). Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal study of
workplace, psychological and behavioural correlates. Journal Of Occupational And
Organizational Psychology, 75, 377–392.
Dasborough, M., Lamb, P., & Suseno, Y. (2015). Understanding emotions in higher education
change management. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(4), 579-590.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.
Drew, G. (2010). Issues and challenges in higher education leadership: Engaging for change. The
Australian Educational Researcher, 37(3), 57-76.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from http://www.
education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Eisenhardt, K., Martin, J., & Helfat, C. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic
Management Journal, 21(10‐11), 1105–1121.
Elmore, R.F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement, Washington, D.C:
Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved July 12, 2003 from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/bridging-gap-between-standards-and-achieveme
nt.
Fainshmidt, S., Nair, A., & Mallon, M. (2017). MNE performance during a crisis: An
177

evolutionary perspective on the role of dynamic managerial capabilities and industry
context. International Business Review, 26(6), 1088–1099.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks:
SAGE.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56.
Gelaidan, H. M., Al-Swidi, A., & Mabkhot, H. A. (2018). Employee readiness for change in
public higher education institutions: Examining the joint effect of leadership behavior
and emotional intelligence. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(2), 150-
158.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Gonzales, Leslie D. (2013). Faculty Sensemaking and Mission Creep: Interrogating
Institutionalized Ways of Knowing and Doing Legitimacy. Review of Higher Education,
36(2), 179-209.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15, 103–120.
Harris, M. (2013). Understanding Institutional Diversity in American Higher Education: ASHE
Higher Education Report, 39:3 (J-B ASHE Higher Education Report Series (AEHE)
Ser). Somerset: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Heckmann, N., Steger, T., & Dowling, M. (2016). Organizational capacity for change, change
178

experience, and change project performance. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 777–
784.
Heisler, J., & Hougland, J. (1984). An ecological explanation of factors associated with the
demise of independent liberal arts II colleges. Research in Higher Education, 20(4),
427-443.
Helfat, C., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D., & Winter, S. (2007).
Dynamic capabilities: understanding strategic change in organizations. London:
Blackwell Pub.
Helfat, C., & Peteraf, M. (2009). Understanding dynamic capabilities: progress along a
developmental path. Strategic Organization, 7(1), 91–102.
Helfat, C., & Peteraf, M. (2015). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of
dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6), 831–850.
Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of transformational and
change leadership on employees' commitment to a change: A multilevel study. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 346.
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: extension of a
three-component model. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474–487.
Holt, D., Armenakis, A., Feild, H., & Harris, S. (2007). Readiness for Organizational Change:
The Systematic Development of a Scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
43(2), 232–255.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Jones, M.L. (2001). Sustainable organizational capacity building: is organizational learning a
179

key. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12 (1), 91-98.
Jones, R., Jimmieson, N., & Griffiths, A. (2005). The Impact of Organizational Culture and
Reshaping Capabilities on Change Implementation Success: The Mediating Role of
Readiness for Change. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 361–386.
Judge, W., & Blocker, C. (2008). Organizational capacity for change and strategic
ambidexterity. European Journal of Marketing, 42(9/10), 915–926.
Judge, W., & Douglas, T. (2009). Organizational change capacity: the systematic development
of a scale. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(6), 635–649.
Judge, W., & Elenkov, D. (2005). Organizational capacity for change and environmental
performance: an empirical assessment of Bulgarian firms. Journal of Business Research,
58(7), 893–901.
Judge, W., Naoumova, I., & Douglas, T. (2009). Organizational capacity for change and firm
performance in a transition economy. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 20(8), 1737–1752.
Kerber, K., & Buono, A. (2005). Rethinking organizational change: reframing
the challenge of change management. Organization Development Journal, 23(3), 23–38.
Kezar, A. (2001). Theories and models of organizational change. Understanding and facilitating
organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4), 25-58.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/.
Kotter, J. (2012). Leading change: with a new preface by the author. Boston, Mass.:
Harvard Business School Press.
180

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41, 212–218.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: concept, method and reality in social science;
social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5–41.
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lockett, A., Thompson, S., & Wright, M. (2005). Edith Penrose’s legacy to the resource‐based
view. Managerial and Decision Economics, 26(2), 83–98.
Lord, R. G., & Kanfer, R. (2002). Emotions and organizational behavior. In R. G. Lord, R. J.
Klomoski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions in the Workplace: Understanding the Structure
and Roles of Emotions in Organizational Behavior (pp. 5–19). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Lyken-Segosebe, Dawn & Shepherd, Justin Cole. (2013). Learning from closed institutions:
Indicators of risk for small private colleges and universities. Tennessee Independent
Colleges and Universities Association (TICUA). Retrieved from
http://www.ticua.org/public_policy/sm_files/Learning%20from%20Closed%20Institution
s.pdf
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
181

commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89.
Miller, D., Madsen, S., & John, C. (2006). Readiness for change: implications on employees’
relationship with management, job knowledge and skills, and job demands. Journal of
Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 3–16.
Moody's: US higher education sector outlook revised to negative as revenue growth prospects
soften. (2017, December 05). Retrieved from
https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-US-higher-education-sector-outlook-revised-
to-negative-as--PR_376587.
Moran, J., & Brightman, B. (2001). Leading organizational change. Career Development
International, 6(2/3), 111–119.
Morphew, Christopher C. (2009). Conceptualizing Change in the Institutional Diversity of U.S.
Colleges and Universities. Journal of Higher Education, 80(3), 243-269.
Navarro, J., & Gallardo, F. (2003). A model of strategic change: universities and dynamic
capabilities. Higher Education Policy, 16(2), 199–212.
Nemanich, L., & Vera, D. (2009). Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the context
of an acquisition. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 19–33.
Nordin, N. (2011). The influence of emotional intelligence, leadership behaviour and
organizational commitment on organizational readiness for change in higher learning
institution. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 129-138.
O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the
innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206
O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business
Review, 82(4), 74–81.
182

Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Pasmore, W., & Fagans, M. (1992). Participation, individual development, and organizational
change: a review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 18(2), 375–397.
Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
Porter, S., & Ramirez, T. (2009). Why do colleges fail? An analysis of college and university
closings and mergers, 1975-2005. Unpublished manuscript, Iowa State University,
Ames, IA.
Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. (1994). Organizational transformation as punctuated
equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1141.
Rindova, V., & Kotha, S. (2001). Continuous “morphing”: competing through dynamic
capabilities, form, and function. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(6),
1263–1280.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.) (pp. 85-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Schein, E.H. (1996). Kurt Lewin's change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward
a model of managed learning. Systems practice, 9 (1), 27–47.
Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
183

Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from http://
www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/.
Schultz, Christie. (2014). Learning is change: creating an environment for sustainable
organizational change in continuing and higher education. Canadian Journal of
University Continuing Education, 40(1), R.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–
189.
Scott, G., Coates, H., and Anderson, M. (2008). Learning leaders in times of change: Academic
Leadership Capabilities for Australian Higher Education.
https://research.acer.edu.au/higher_education/3
Scott, G., Bell, S., Coates, H., & Grebennikov, L. (2010). Australian higher education leaders in
times of change: The role of pro vice-chancellor and deputy vice-chancellor. Journal of
Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(4), 401-418.
Senge, P. (1990). The leader’s new work: building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review, 32(1), 7.
Shraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009). Interest. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/
reference/article/interest/.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–
189.
Smart, John C., & St. John, Edward P. (1996). Organizational culture and effectiveness in
higher education: a test of the "culture type" and "strong culture" hypotheses.
184

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(3), 219-41.
Smith, W., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. (2010). Complex Business Models: Managing Strategic
Paradoxes Simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 448–461.
Soparnot, R. (2011). The concept of organizational change capacity. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 24(5), 640–661.
Stowe, K., & Komasara, D. (2016). An analysis of closed colleges and universities. Planning for
Higher Education, 44(4), 79.
Sune, A., & Gibb, J. (2015). Dynamic capabilities as patterns of organizational change. Journal
of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 213–231.
Tarrant, M., Bray, N., & Katsinas, S. (2017). The invisible colleges revisited: An empirical
review. The Journal of Higher Education, 1-27.
Taylor, A., & Helfat, C. (2009). Organizational linkages for surviving technological change:
complementary assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. Organization Science,
20(4), 718–739.
Teece, D. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of
(sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.
Teece, D. (2014). A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational
enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(1), 8–37.
Teece, D., & Pisano, G. (1998). The Dynamic Capabilities of Firms: An Introduction. In
Technology, Organization, and Competitiveness. Oxford University Press.
Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Tushman, M., & O’Reilly III, C. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary
185

and revolutionary change. California Management Review, (4), 8–30.
Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of
convergence and reorientation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 171-222.
Tushman, M. , Newman, W. & Romanelli, E. (1986). Convergence and upheaval: managing
the unsteady pace of organizational evolution. California Management Review, 29 (1),
29-44.
Vakola, M. (2014). What's in there for me? individual readiness to change and the perceived
impact of organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
35(3), 195-209.
Van De Ven, A., & Poole, M. (1995). Explaining Development and Change in Organizations.
The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510–540.
Wanberg, C., & Banas, J. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a
reorganizing workplace. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132–142.
Wang, C., & Ahmed, P. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 31–51.
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science,
4, 67.
Winter, S. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities.(Why Is There a Resource-Based View?
Toward a Theory of Competitive Heterogeneity). Strategic Management Journal,
24(10), 991–995.
Winter, S., Hoopes, D., Madsen, T., & Walker, G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities.
Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 991–995.
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from http://www.
186

education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/.
Zahra, S., Sapienza, H., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capabilities: A
Review, Model and Research Agenda. Journal of Management Studies. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities.
Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.

187

Appendix A
Survey Items
Change Readiness Survey
Demographic questions to determine sample sets:

Hiring classification: administrative or academic

Geographic location: Mequon, Ann Arbor, Extended Campus

How many years have you worked at the university? Less than 1, 1-5, 5-7, 7-10, 10-15,
15-20, 20+

How many years have you been a manager at the university? Less than 1, 1-5, 5-7, 7-10,
10-15, 15-20, 20+

Mark the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following general statements about the
need for change at the university.
(5-point Likert scale; 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)

There are legitimate reasons for change at the university.
Generally, no one explains why change is made at the university.
It doesn’t make sense for us to initiate change at the university.
Most change at the university is clearly needed.
I think we usually implement change at the university just because we can.
I think there are real business needs that make change necessary.

A performance goal for my division/department has the following components (check all that
apply)
a) who (clearly identifies who owns this goal)*
b) what (concretely states the performance objective with a verb)*
c) when (identifies a date that the goal is accomplished)*
d) open ended language (vague to allow for new ideas and changes)
e) by how much (observable and measurable)*
f) financial resource allocation (what is the exact budget amount to support the goal)

Indicate your level of agreement with each of the following:
(5-point Likert scale; 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)

I know the performance goals for my department.
I know the gaps between how my department performs today and our performance goals.
I know what capabilities are required to close performance gaps in my department.

Which of the following are change capabilities:
188

(Check all that apply)
• Accurately recognize opportunities in the university environment.*
• Give complete attention to the environment to sense new opportunities*.
• Effectively maintain existing performance in order to protect the status quo.
• Focus thinking and block distractions in order to seize opportunities.*
• Use language and non-verbal behavior to convey information, persuade, and mobilize
others.*
• Inspire cooperation among members of an organization.*
• Intentionally safeguard my department to ensure its long term viability.
Factors influence change readiness at the individual and organizational levels. Use the slide scale
(0-100) and indicate the degree to which each of the following factors influence overall change
readiness in your department.
• Individual employees believe that a specific change is the right one for the situation.
(I)
• Individual employees are certain that leaders are committed to the change (it’s not a
passing fad). (I)
• Individual employees believe that a change can be accomplished. (I)
• Individual employees are confident that a change is beneficial. (I)
• Employees share a collective trust that leaders will act in the best interest of the
organization’s stakeholders. (O)
• The organization has a shared confidence that change can be accomplished. (O)
• There is widespread, shared clarity about the differences between the current state
and a more desirable state. (O)
• There is agreement in the organization about the need for change. (O)
• The organization offers a sufficient tangible and an encouraging intangible
environment to support implementation. (O)
• The organization shares a set of clearly articulated goals and objectives that are
supported by a detailed implementation plan defining roles and system to measure
progress. (O)

A new vice president is appointed to lead your department. You meet your new boss only briefly
before the news is broadly communicated to the university. When this new individual starts, it
becomes clear that the criteria against which your department will be measured has changed. The
new vice president defines performance differently and is very clear about your unit’s new
performance goals. What actions will you take to effectively manage your team to succeed in
light of the changes?
a) I will explain the need for change to those in my department.*
b) I will explain to my department that we have no choice but to go along with the
change.
c) I build employee confidence that he or she has the capability to close the gap between
where we are and where we want to be.*
d) I will take a stand to protect my department from these changes.

189

Higher education is a changing industry. After much discussion, university leaders announce that
the university intends to dramatically scale its efforts in new education markets and will increase
new programs in the coming year. Your department will have new expectations to meet in the
development of these programs, their execution, and their success. What actions will you take to
effectively manage your team to succeed in light of the changes?
a) I will communicate where the organization is currently, where it wants to be, and why
that goal is appropriate.*
b) I will identify and incorporate external information that adds credibility to messages
that I communicate about university change.*
c) I will take the primary role to develop the tactics and strategies our department will
use to achieve success.
d) I will more intentionally develop my expertise within my field.*
e) I will ensure my department knows its weaknesses and stress them often to motivate
behavior.
How frequently do you perform the following change behaviors in your work as a manager?
(5-pt Likert scale, frequency; 1= Never and 5 = Always)
Communication:
• I explain the need for change to those in my department.
• I describe to my unit where the organization is currently, where it wants to be, and
why that goal is appropriate.
• I build employee confidence that he or she has the capability to close the gap between
where we are and where we want to be.
• I deliver meaningful messages about change in team settings.
• I deliver meaningful messages about change one-on-one to each of my employees.
Influence Strategies:
• I identify and incorporate external information that adds credibility to messages that I
communicate about university change.
• I construct opportunities for employees to actively participate and learn about
proposed changes (self-direction).
Personal Attributes:
• I intentionally develop my own credibility, trustworthiness, and sincerity at the
university.
• I intentionally develop my expertise within my field.
When I experience change initiatives at the university, I most often feel that:
a) I believe in the value of the change.
b) I have no choice but to go along with the change.
c) I would feel guilty about opposing the change.

190

Mark the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about
organizational change at the university.
(5-point Likert scale; 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)

Personally Beneficial
• Change at the university benefits me personally.
• I worry that my future in this job will be limited by changes at the university.
• In the long run, I feel it is generally worthwhile for me when the organization adopts
changes.
• Generally, changes make my job easier.
• Often, the effort required to implement change at the university is small compared to
the benefits I see from it.
Organizationally Beneficial
• University-level change is generally worth the cost (effort, emotion, energy).
• I think that generally our organization benefits from change.
• When we adopt changes, we are usually better equipped to meet students’ needs.
• University changes generally match the priorities of our mission.
• Our organization often loses valuable assets when we make changes.
Change Confidence
• My past experiences make me confident that I can achieve our change goals.
• There are some tasks that are required when we change that I don’t think we can do
well.
• When I set my mind to it, I can learn what will be required when we face change.
• I am intimidated by all that I need to learn to manage change.
• Managers like me have the will and creativity to bring about change.
Goal Orientation
• Managers like me are encouraged to explore change.
• Managers like me recognize the importance of institutionalizing change.
Mark the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about
organizational change.
(5-point Likert scale; 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)

• My past experiences make me confident that I can achieve our change goals. (I)
• When I set my mind to it, I can learn what will be required when we face change. (I)
• I am intimidated by all that I need to learn to manage change. (I)
• Managers like me have the will and creativity to bring about change. (I)
• There are some tasks that are required when we change that I don’t think we can do
well. (O)
• Our organization’s history does not make me confident that we can achieve our
change goals. (O)
• When our organization faces a problem, we can find solutions. (O)
• I am confident that our organization can deal effectively with change. (O)
191

Mark the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about
organizational change.
(5-point Likert scale; 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)
• Managers like me are encouraged to explore change to close performance gaps.
• Managers like me recognize the importance of institutionalizing change to close
performance gaps.
• Managers like me are not afraid to take risks and occasionally fail.
Think about managers like you in the university. Mark the degree to which you agree or disagree
with these statements about change and management.
(5-point Likert scale; 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)
• Managers like me regularly open themselves to consider change proposals.
• Managers like me have opportunities to voice concerns about university change.
• Managers like me are willing and able to challenge the status quo.
• University leaders consistently articulate an inspiring vision of the future.
• University leaders show courage in their support of change initiatives.
• Managers like me are encouraged to explore change.
What value does our management culture place on organizational change?
a) High
b) Moderate
c) Low
d) None
Reflect on the university's culture. Mark the degree to which you agree or disagree with the
following statements about change in this culture.
(5-point Likert scale; 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)

• This university protects its core values while encouraging change.
• Managers like me balance innovation with getting things done.
• We have an organizational culture that provides resources to experiment with new
ideas.
• We have an organizational culture that allows people to take risks and occasionally
fail.
• Change-related communication flows effectively from university senior leaders to
frontline employees.
• Managers like me effectively link senior administration with frontline faculty and
staff.
• Managers are equipped to communicate clearly during times of organizational
change.
• Our organization’s top decision makers put all of their support behind change efforts.
• Senior leaders encourage management to embrace change.
• Senior leaders often change their minds in the midst of change implementation.
192

Appendix B
Interview Protocol
Thank you very much for your willingness to participate in this project. As we begin,
let’s review the participation information I included in my invitation. I want to ensure you feel
completely comfortable and answer any questions that you might have about the study.
First of all, your participation is absolutely voluntary. You are free to stop at any time during or
after this interview.
You already read and signed the Informed Consent for Non-Medical Research form as
part of your invitation. Do you have any questions about it or the protections it outlines for you
as part of the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program?
[Allow time for questions and responses.]
Again, everything we discuss is confidential. This confidentiality includes your decision
to participate. And, if you choose to end your participation that, too is confidential. Your name
will not be used at any time in the study, including in the context of any of your comments.
I would like to audio record our session to assist in my transcription process.
You have the right to ask that the recording be turned off at any point during our time
together. Once I transcribe the interview, the audio file will be deleted. My transcriptions are
stored on my laptop as well as backed up in my USC secured Google Drive account.
Is it okay if I record our interview? [Wait] And do you understand how I will protect your
data after this interview? [Wait]
Finally, your candor and openness is really helpful, but share only as you feel
comfortable. While to a certain extent, our goal is a conversation, it will probably feel like you
are doing most of the talking, and that’s actually my goal. My number job is to listen carefully to
193

ensure I am really understanding the information you are providing. I will likely remind you
throughout this conversation, however, that it is an interview. That’s too ensure you feel
protected in our discussion.
Are we ready? Great. Let’s talk.
Question Set
So, we’re focusing on change and readiness for change, specifically at your university.
To get started, I invited you to bring along an example of a positive change that you have led as
part of your work as a manager/dean at the University. Your example might be something really
practical and procedural, or more cultural or strategic, what matters is that you had a first-person,
front row seat to the change. So, tell me about your example.
Knowledge Questions
As you can probably imagine, people share all sorts of examples of change. I’m curious –
the change you described in your example, did it seem given your vantage point like a necessary
change? How so?
Okay, that was a substantive example of change that you experienced “close to home,” as
it were, within your own department. Let’s telescope out a bit and think about change more
broadly within the organization.
To begin:
Please describe one of your organizational performance goals.
How far are you in achieving that goal?
What strategies are you aware of that could close those gaps?
Tell me your sense of where the university aims to be in the next five to ten years.
How does that compare with where the university is today?
194

What capabilities will the university need to deploy or develop to get from today to where you
sense it wants to be?
Alright, let’s keep thinking about change at the university.
Think about change within your department. Assess it with a “change temperature,” using
100 degree for red hot change-ready and 32 degrees for deep, wintry change-cold. What number
do you have in mind? Are there individuals within your department who would register a
different temperature than the group? Why do you think that might be?
Describe to me how an individual’s personal readiness for change works with the
university’s or department’s overall level of change readiness. How do those interact, the
personal and the organizational?
Let’s go back to the positive example of change that you brought with you today.
Tell me about a change that your department has experienced and broadly supported. If I
had been a member of your team, what would I have observed you doing to secure my support?
Suppose that I was observing your team during this change experience: what would I see?
What would I hear?
What is a specific leadership behavior or approach that you perform to influence your
department’s readiness for change?
So far we’ve been zooming in closer and closer from a sort of big picture perspective to a
more personal consideration. I want to reflect a bit more on how you think about change on that
personal, individual level.
Motivation Questions
We’ve been talking about what we know about change and the process of change at the
University, but there’s lots more to how change happens beyond the sort of what and how. We’re
195

going to shift gears a bit and I’m curious to collect your insights about what motivates change at
the University. You can talk about your own motivation or about what you see motivating this
University.
How do you feel about the need for change at the university?
(positive) What motivates you to embrace change in this way?
(negative) What makes it difficult for you to fully embrace change at the university?
(If they have mentioned mission during the interview) You’ve mentioned the university mission
a few times. How does the mission in your opinion influence the effort, and emotion, and energy
you invest toward change?
Let’s talk a bit about the status quo at the University.
Tell me about one of the biggest changes you think the university has yet to make, can it be
done?
If yes: what specifically makes you believe this is so?
If no: what would change your belief?
A last major element of motivation is our goal focus, our pursuit of mastery. Let’s
reflect a bit on that.
Let’s use a simple 1-5 scale, with 1 being low and 5 being high. How active (let’s say
intentional, mindful) are you about working on your own change management skills and
mindset?
Walk me through a specific example in your leadership when you sensed a need for
change, seized the opportunity, and reconfigured your department’s resources (people or capital
etc) to achieve it.
What influences you to become more change ready?
196

How comfortable are you with taking risks and possibly failing as you grapple with
change in your work? Why is that so?
Organization Questions
Okay, we’re moving into our last section of questions. We’ve talked about the what
and the how of change, and we’ve talked about what motivates our change approach at the
university. In these final few questions, I’d like us to talk about the organization as a whole, its
culture and processes, “the way we do things around here,” and how that influences change.
Think about change in your department. Describe how it feels. Is it a welcome
experience, generally, or unwelcome? What makes it feel this way?
We’re going to experiment with some feelings about change. I’ll share a few concepts
and you tell me how these make you feel:
Status quo
Innovation
Risk
Failure
change agent
Exploration.
Okay, I’m going to share the same concepts, and this time respond with the feelings you
think these elicit within the broader workforce at the university.
(if there is a gap) Tell me a bit about the differences in your responses. Can you give me
an example that illustrates (repeat the words) in the culture?
197

Let’s use our easy 1-5 scale again for this question. 1 is low and 5 is high. Rate the
university on a spectrum from 1/absolutely stuck when it comes to change to 5/entirely fluid
when it comes to an overall value for change.
What leads you to make this assessment?
What resources are available to help you improve your change management mindset and
skills?
Earlier, I asked about your personal threshold for risk and failure, tell me about how risk
and failure are perceived more broadly within the organization. How do you know that is so?
Finally, as we conclude, what summary statement would you give to answer this last
question:
On the whole, how does the university use its managers like you to achieve major
change?
I’ve genuinely appreciated that opportunity to share in this discussion. Is there anything
else that I didn’t ask that you would like to add to our conversation? Would you be open to a
second opportunity to sit down together as this research progresses? There’s much I know I will
reflect on as I work through your comments. May I reach out to you either face-to-face or via
email? [Wait for response] Do you have a preference?

198

Appendix C
Aligned Influences and Instrument Items
Assumed KMO Influences with Survey and Interview Items
Stakeholder Performance Goal
By October 2020, 25% of university academic and operational middle managers will demonstrate the
knowledge, values, and behaviors necessary to effectuate change in the organization.
Assumed Influence Survey Item Interview Item
Factual Knowledge
Managers need to know the
performance gaps between where
the organization is and where it
needs to be, and the change
capabilities required to close the
gap.

Mark the degree to which you
agree or disagree with the
following general statements
about the need for change at
the university.
5-point Likert scale; 1 =
strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree
1. There are legitimate
reasons for change at the
university.
2. It doesn’t make sense for us
to initiate change at the
university.
3. Change at the university is
clearly needed.
4. We set unrealistic
performance goals.
5. There are real business
needs that make change
necessary.
Adapted from Holt, et al.
(2007)
A performance goal for my
division/department has the
following components (check
all that apply)
Please describe one of your
organizational performance
goals.
How far are you in achieving
that goal?
What strategies are you aware
of that could close those gaps?
Tell me your sense of where the
university aims to be in the next
five to ten years.
How does that compare with
where the university is today?
What capabilities will the
university need to deploy or
develop to get from today to
where you sense it wants to be?
199

• who (clearly identifies who
owns this goal)*
• what (concretely states the
performance objective with
a verb)*
• when (identifies a date that
the goal is accomplished)*
• open ended language
(vague to allow for new
ideas and changes)
• by how much (observable
and measurable)*
• financial resource
allocation (what is the exact
budget amount to support
the goal)
Indicate your level of
agreement with each of the
following:
5-point Likert scale; 1 =
strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree
• I know the performance
goals for my department.
• I know the gaps between
how my department
performs today and our
performance goals.
• I know what capabilities
are required to close
performance gaps in my
department.
Which of the following are
change capabilities:
(Check all that apply)
• Accurately recognize
opportunities in the
university environment.*
• Give complete attention to
the environment to sense
new opportunities*.
• Effectively maintain
existing performance in
200

order to protect the status
quo.
• Focus thinking and block
distractions in order to
seize opportunities.*
• Use language and non-
verbal behavior to convey
information, persuade, and
mobilize others.*
• Inspire cooperation among
members of an
organization.*
• Intentionally safeguard my
department to ensure its
long term viability.
Conceptual Knowledge
Managers must know the levels of
change readiness, commitment,
efficacy, and urgency within
individual employees and the
organization as a whole, and
appreciate the ways that these
factors interleave to intensify
readiness.

Factors influence change
readiness at the individual and
organizational levels. Use the
slide scale (0-100) and indicate
the degree to which each of the
following factors influence
overall change readiness in
your department.
• Individual employees
believe that a specific
change is the right one for
the situation. (I)
• Individual employees are
certain that leaders are
committed to the change
(it’s not a passing fad). (I)
• Individual employees
believe that a change can
be accomplished. (I)
• Individual employees are
confident that a change is
beneficial. (I)
• Employees share a
collective trust that leaders
will act in the best interest
of the organization’s
stakeholders. (O)
• The organization has a
shared confidence that
change can be
accomplished. (O)
Think about change within your
department. Assess it with a
“change temperature,” using
100 degree for red hot change-
ready and 32 degrees for deep,
wintry change-cold. What
number do you have in mind?
Are there individuals within
your department who would
register a different temperature
than the group? Why do you
think that might be?
Describe to me how an
individual’s personal readiness
for change works with the
university’s or department’s
overall level of change
readiness. How do those
interact, the personal and the
organizational?

201

• There is widespread, shared
clarity about the differences
between the current state
and a more desirable state.
(O)
• There is agreement in the
organization about the need
for change. (O)
• The organization offers a
sufficient tangible and an
encouraging intangible
environment to support
implementation. (O)
• The organization shares a
set of clearly articulated
goals and objectives that
are supported by a detailed
implementation plan
defining roles and system to
measure progress. (O)
Procedural Knowledge
Managers need to know how to
perform the behaviors that most
influence the factors that create
change readiness within
individuals and teams.
A new vice president is
appointed to lead your
department. You meet your
new boss only briefly before
the news is broadly
communicated to the
university. When this new
individual starts, it becomes
clear that the criteria against
which your department will be
measured has changed. The
new vice president defines
performance differently and is
very clear about your unit’s
new performance goals. What
actions will you take to
effectively manage your team
to succeed in light of the
changes?
a) I will explain the need for
change to those in my
department.*
b) I will explain to my
department that we have no
Tell me about a change that
your department has
experienced and broadly
supported. If I had been a
member of your team, what
would I have observed you
doing to secure my support?
Suppose that I was observing
your team during this change
experience: what would I see?
What would I hear?
What is a specific leadership
behavior or approach that you
perform to influence your
department’s readiness for
change?
202

choice but to go along with
the change.
c) I build employee
confidence that he or she
has the capability to close
the gap between where we
are and where we want to
be.*
d) I will take a stand to protect
my department from these
changes.
Higher education is a changing
industry. After much
discussion, university leaders
announce that the university
intends to dramatically scale
its efforts in new education
markets and will increase new
programs in the coming year.
Your department will have
new expectations to meet in
the development of these
programs, their execution, and
their success. What actions
will you take to effectively
manage your team to succeed
in light of the changes?
a) I will communicate where
the organization is
currently, where it wants to
be, and why that goal is
appropriate.*
b) I will identify and
incorporate external
information that adds
credibility to messages that
I communicate about
university change.*
c) I will take the primary role
to develop the tactics and
strategies our department
will use to achieve success.
d) I will more intentionally
develop my expertise
within my field.*
e) I will ensure my
department knows its
203

weaknesses and stress them
often to motivate behavior.
How frequently do you
perform the following change
behaviors in your work as a
manager?
Frequency – 7 point
1 – Never
2 – Rarely
3 – Occasionally
4 – Sometimes
5 – Frequently
6 – Usually
7 – Always
Communication:
• I explain the need for
change to those in my
department.
• I describe to my unit where
the organization is
currently, where it wants to
be, and why that goal is
appropriate.
• I build employee
confidence that he or she
has the capability to close
the gap between where we
are and where we want to
be.
• I deliver meaningful
messages about change in
team settings.
• I deliver meaningful
messages about change
one-on-one to each of my
employees.
Influence Strategies:
• I identify and incorporate
external information that
adds credibility to
messages that I
communicate about
university change.
• I construct opportunities for
employees to actively
204

participate and learn about
proposed changes (self-
direction).
Personal Attributes:
• I intentionally develop my
own credibility,
trustworthiness, and
sincerity at the university.
• I intentionally develop my
expertise within my field.

Adapted from Armenakis et al,
(1993); Holt et al., (2007);
Jones et al., (2005); and Miller
et al., (2006)
Motivation: Cost Value
Managers need to believe that the
effort, emotion, and energy of
change are worth the cost.

Mark the degree to which you
generally agree or disagree
with the following statements
about organizational change at
the university.
5-point Likert scale; 1 =
strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree
Personally Beneficial
• Change at the university
benefits me personally.
• My future in this job will
be limited by changes at the
university.
• It is generally worthwhile
for me when the
organization adopts
changes.
• Generally, changes make
my job easier.
• The effort required to
implement change at the
university is small
compared to the benefits I
see from it.

How do you feel about the need
for change at the university?
(positive) What motivates you
to embrace change in this way?
(negative) What makes it
difficult for you to fully
embrace change at the
university?
(If they have mentioned
mission during the interview)
You’ve mentioned the
university mission a few times.
How does the mission in your
opinion influence the effort,
and emotion, and energy you
invest toward change?
205

Organizationally Beneficial
• University-level change is
generally worth the cost
(effort, emotion, energy).
• Generally, our organization
benefits from change.
• When we adopt changes,
we are usually better
equipped to meet students’
needs.
• University changes
generally match the
priorities of our mission.
• Our organization often
loses valuable assets when
we make changes.
Adapted from Holt, et al.
(2007)
Motivation: Efficacy
Managers must believe in their
individual and in the
organization’s collective
competence to achieve change
goals.

Mark the degree to which you
agree or disagree with the
following statements about
organizational change.
5-point Likert scale; 1 =
strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree
Change Confidence
1. My past experiences make
me confident that I can
achieve our change goals.
(I)
2. There are some tasks that
are required when we
change that I don’t think
we can do well. (O)
3. Our organization’s history
does not make me
confident that we can
achieve our change goals.
(O)
4. When our organization
faces a problem, we can
find solutions. (O)
Tell me about one of the
biggest changes you think the
university has yet to make, can
it be done?
If yes: what specifically makes
you believe this is so?
If no: what would change your
belief?
206

5. When I set my mind to it, I
can learn what will be
required when we face
change. (I)
6. I am intimidated by all that
I need to learn to manage
change. (I)
7. I am confident that our
organization can deal
effectively with change.
(O)
8. Managers like me have the
will and creativity to bring
about change. (I)
Adapted from Holt, et al.
(2007) and Judge and Douglas
(2009) and Bandura’s General
Self-Efficacy Scale
Motivation: Goal Orientation
Managers should work toward
strategic change mastery.

Mark the degree to which you
agree or disagree with the
following statements about
organizational change.
5-point Likert scale; 1 =
strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree
1. Managers like me are
encouraged to explore
change to close
performance gaps.
2. Managers like me
recognize the importance of
institutionalizing change to
close performance gaps.
3. Managers like me are not
afraid to take risks and
occasionally fail.
Adapted from Judge and
Douglas (2009)

Let’s use a simple 1-5 scale,
with 1 being low and 5 being
high. How active (let’s say
intentional, mindful) are you
about working on your own
change management skills and
mindset?
Walk me through a specific
example in your leadership
when you sensed a need for
change, seized the opportunity,
and reconfigured your
department’s resources (people
or capital etc) to achieve it.
What influences you to become
more change ready?
How comfortable are you with
taking risks and possibly failing
as you grapple with change in
your work? Why is that so?
207

Organization: Cultural Models
The organization needs to support
a management culture that values
change.

Think about managers like you
in the university. Mark the
degree to which you agree or
disagree with these statements
about change and
management.
5-point Likert scale; 1 =
strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree
1. Managers like me regularly
open themselves to
consider change proposals.
2. Managers like me do not
have opportunities to voice
concerns about university
change.
3. Managers like me are
willing and able to
challenge the status quo.
4. University leaders
consistently articulate an
inspiring vision of the
future.
5. University leaders do not
show courage in their
support of change
initiatives.
6. Managers like me are
encouraged to explore
change.
What value does our
management culture place on
organizational change?
a. High
b. Moderate
c. Low
d. None
Adapted from Judge and
Douglas (2009)
Think about change in your
department. Describe how it
feels. Is it a welcome
experience, generally, or
unwelcome? What makes it feel
this way?
We’re going to experiment with
some feelings about change. I’ll
share a few concepts and you
tell me how these make you
feel: Status quo, innovation,
risk, failure, change agent,
exploration.
Okay, I’m going to share the
same concepts, and this time
respond with the feelings you
think these elicit within the
broader workforce at the
university.
Let’s use our 1-5 scale again for
this question. 1 is low and 5 is
high. Rate the university on a
spectrum from 1/absolutely
stuck when it comes to change
to 5/entirely fluid when it
comes to an overall value for
change.
What leads you to make this
assessment?
208

Organization: Cultural Setting
The organization needs to support
ambidextrous change
management.
Reflect on the university's
culture. Mark the degree to
which you agree or disagree
with the following statements
about change in this culture.
5-point Likert scale; 1 =
strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree
1. We have an organizational
culture that provides
resources to experiment
with new ideas.
2. We have an organizational
culture that allows people
to take risks and
occasionally fail.
Adapted from Judge and
Douglas (2009)
What resources are available to
help you improve your change
management mindset and
skills?
Earlier, I asked about your
personal threshold for risk and
failure, tell me about how risk
and failure are perceived more
broadly within the organization.
How do you know that is so?
The organization needs to support
managers to link institutional
vision for change with daily
routines.
Reflect on the university's
culture. Mark the degree to
which you agree or disagree
with the following statements
about change in this culture.
5-point Likert scale; 1 =
strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree
1. Change-related
communication flows
effectively from university
senior leaders to frontline
employees.
2. Managers like me
effectively link senior
administration with
frontline faculty and staff.
3. Managers are equipped to
communicate clearly when
the organization is going to
change.
How does the university use its
managers like you to achieve
major change?
209

4. Our organization’s top
decision makers put all of
their support behind
change efforts.
5. Senior leaders encourage
management to embrace
change.
6. Senior leaders often
change their minds in the
midst of change
implementation.
Adapted from Holt et. al
(2007) and Judge and Douglas
(2009)

210

Appendix D
Participant Post-Program Evaluation Form

Leader Lab
Summer Intensive
Evaluation Form
Your Name
Cohort
Coach Name
Please complete this form. Your reaction to the Leader Lab program helps to improve the experience as we work
together to achieve a change agile university. Thank you.
Post-Intensive Reaction
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
1 2 3 4 5
Me

1 I was personally interested in attending the event.

2
I understood the objectives for the event prior to
attending.

3
I had the necessary prerequisite knowledge to
participate fully in this experience.

Materials / Environment

4 I was comfortable with the pace of the event.

5
I found the program design and style helpful to my
learning experience.

6 The cohort size was right for this experience.

7
I found the atmosphere of the retreat location
suitable for this event.

Relevance

8 The event content matched the objectives.

9 I will be able to apply what I learned to my work.

10
I was able to relate my existing knowledge to the
new knowledge I learned at the intensive.

11 I feel this program is relevant to our mission.

Effectiveness

12
I was given opportunities to practice, apply, and
gain feedback of my learning during the intensive.

13
I had opportunity to share my opinions and
perspectives throughout the intensive.

14
I was invited to actively participate in the learning
that took place at this intensive.

Overall Effectiveness

Please indicate the overall effectiveness of this
experience.

211

Participant Post-Program Evaluation Form (continued)

Before the Intensive
Post-Intensive
Learning Review
After the Intensive
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Knowledge of the organization’s performance gaps and the
change capabilities required to close those gaps.

Knowledge of how individuals’ change factors interact with the
organization to intensify readiness.

Skill to perform the behaviors that most influence the factors
that create readiness in people and teams.

Confidence to work toward change mastery.

Commitment to link the organization’s vision for change with
daily routines.

Belief that the effort, emotion, and energy of change are worth
the costs.

Belief in both my own and the organization’s shared ability to
achieve change.

What did you find most beneficial about the experience?

How would you improve the experience for the next cohort?

Briefly describe the steps you will take to use what you learned. What support will you need to implement
these steps?

212

Appendix E
Delayed Evaluation Forms
Participant Post-Program Delayed Evaluation Form

Leader Lab
Midyear
Evaluation Form
Your Name
Cohort
Coach Name
Please complete this form. Your reaction to the Leader Lab program helps to improve the experience as we work
together to achieve a change agile university. Thank you.
Leader Lab Midyear Reaction
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
1 2 3 4 5
Me

1
It is easy for me to engage in my cohort coaching
sessions.

2
I am engaged in my peer feedback group
experiences.

3
The summer intensive provided me the
prerequisite knowledge to participate fully in my
ongoing coaching and peer feedback experiences.

Materials / Environment

4
I feel comfortable with the frequency of my
coaching and peer feedback events.

5
I find the length and content of the coaching
sessions helpful to my learning.

6 My peer feedback group is the right size.

7
The atmosphere of our coaching and peer feedback
events support my learning.

Relevance

8
The coaching sessions support the objectives of
the Leader Lab program.

9
I apply what I learn in coaching and peer feedback
sessions to my work.

10
I am able to relate what I learned at the summer
intensive to what I learn in the coaching sessions.

11 I feel this program is relevant to our mission.

Effectiveness

12
I have opportunities to practice, apply, and gain
feedback of my learning during the coaching
sessions.

13
I have opportunities to share my opinions and
perspectives during peer feedback sessions.

14
I am encouraged to actively participate in coaching
sessions.

Overall Effectiveness

Please indicate the overall effectiveness of this
experience.

213

Participant Post-Program Delayed Evaluation Form (continued)

After the Intensive
Midyear
Learning Review
Today
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Knowledge of the organization’s performance gaps and the
change capabilities required to close those gaps.

Knowledge of how individuals’ change factors interact with the
organization to intensify readiness.

Skill to perform the behaviors that most influence the factors
that create readiness in people and teams.

Confidence to work toward change mastery.

Commitment to link the organization’s vision for change with
daily routines.

Belief that the effort, emotion, and energy of change are worth
the costs.

Belief in both my own and the organization’s shared ability to
achieve change.

What did you find most beneficial about the coaching sessions? The peer feedback sessions?

How would you improve the experience for the next cohort?

Briefly describe how your work as a manager has adapted since the summer intensive. What support do
you need to continue your growth as a change leader?

214

Direct Executive and Chief Strategy Officer Delayed Evaluation Form
This form is completed by the Vice President who supervises middle managers who are participating in a Leader
Lab cohort group. This form is completed by these supervisors not less than six months after the summer intensive
experience to assess the effectiveness of the program in the workplace.

Leader Lab
Direct Executive
Evaluation Form
Your Name
Participant
Review Date

Direct Executive –
Effectiveness Review
(to be conducted at least six months post-intensive)
6-Month Assessment
1 2 3 4 5
The employee is applying the knowledge, skills, and attitudes learned during the
program.

The employee is transferring new knowledge to solve known performance gaps
in novel ways.

The employee is utilizing the sense-seize-reconfigure change model in their
daily work.

Participation in this program has had a positive impact on the employee, their
team, and the organization as a whole.

The employee demonstrates sustained skill development in line with the
objectives for this program.

The employee more effectively persuades others to support organizational
change.

The employee talks with enthusiasm about the project and their participation.

Pre-Program
Direct-Executive
Institutional Impact Review
Post-Program
1 2 3 4 5 (assess the overall performance for each pre and post-program) 1 2 3 4 5

Sustained on time, on goal performance toward institution and
division priorities (strategic objectives) by middle managers.

Sustained performance toward university key performance
goals and division metrics within the total organization.

Frequency of observed change behaviors among managers
(change communication, influence strategies, personal change
readiness attributes).

University’s overall cost of instruction

Frequency of approved high quality, innovative academic and
non- academic revenue-generating proposals

Performance of division toward improved operating margin

Perceived collective efficacy, or belief, among employees that
change can be achieved

215

Appendix F
Post-Intensive Executive Report Sample Data Presentation

Figure E1. Mean learning goal manager scores, pre/post intensive.

Figure E2. Manager learning goal total score, pre/post intensive.
216

Appendix G
Mid-year Executive Report Sample Data Presentations

Figure F1. Mean learning goal manager scores, pre/post intensive, mid-year.

217

Figure F2. Manager learning goal total score, pre/post intensive, mid-year.

Figure F3. Manager learning goal total scores compared to executive mid-year assessment score.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Readiness factors influencing the ability of institutions of higher education to align the budget with organizational goals: an evaluation study of a college

PDF

“A thread throughout”: the KMO influences on implementing DEI strategic plans in state and municipal governments

PDF

A school for implementing arts and technology: an innovation study

PDF

Sticks and stones: achieving educational equity for Black students through board advocacy: an innovation study

PDF

Strategic support for philanthropic fundraising: a needs analysis of development officers in higher education

PDF

Mitigating low employee engagement through improved performance management: an evaluation study

PDF

College and career readiness through independent study: an innovation study

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study

PDF

College and career readiness through high school STEM programs: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

The role of higher education in bridging workforce skills gaps: an evaluation study

PDF

The interaction of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational influences on the implementation of a hybrid reading intervention model taught in elementary grades

PDF

U.S. Navy SEALs resilience needs assessment: an innovation study

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

Implementing comprehensive succession planning: an improvement study

PDF

Applying best practices to optimize racial and ethnic diversity on nonprofit boards: an improvement study

PDF

Aligned leadership attributes and organizational innovation: an evaluation study

PDF

Understanding the reason for variation in high school graduation rates of Latino males

PDF

Creating changemakers: integrating social innovation and service-learning to empower student voice and bolster college, career, and civic readiness

Asset Metadata

Creator Jameson, Gretchen M. (author)

Core Title Creating the conditions for change readiness 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 07/13/2020

Defense Date 05/13/2020

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

Tag ambidexterity,change capabilities,change management,change motivation,change readiness,dynamic capabilities,employee change motivation,gap analysis,Higher education,individual change readiness,Kirkpatrick method,KMO influences,Management,OAI-PMH Harvest,OCC,organizational change capacity,organizational change readiness,organizational culture,organizational learning,organizational theory,readiness,readiness for organizational change,strategic change management,University

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Ott, Maria (committee chair), Bewley, William (committee member), Yates, Kenneth (committee member)

Creator Email gjameson@usc.edu,gretchenjameson@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-328877

Unique identifier UC11665962

Identifier etd-JamesonGre-8668.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-328877 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-JamesonGre-8668.pdf

Dmrecord 328877

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Jameson, Gretchen M.

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