Part 5: Resistance And Opportunities For Change ✓ Solved

Part 5: Resistance/Opportunities for Change Changes in higher

Changes in higher education institutions are bound to happen. No matter what institution you may attend or work at, changes will be made to accommodate the students. Kezar (2009) points out that there is a common belief that change in higher education is both desirable and elusive (p. 19). To create support, we must first understand where resistance is stemming from.

Things such as new pedagogical techniques, increased prestige, improved services, assessment and measurement of learning outcomes, use of technology, and becoming more student- and learner-centered are educational issues that trustees and presidents try to get faculty and staff to adopt (Kezar, 2009, p.19). In the case of the transfer enrollment policy, most of the resistance will come from internal stakeholders, such as faculty and staff members who may be heavily affected by this new initiative. We must counter their resistance with positive outcomes that will be a result of the policy. After all, understanding the process of change is critical to successful implementation (Kezar, 2001, p. 12).

This policy represents an adaptation, where there are modifications and alterations in an organization or its components to adjust to changes in the external environment (Cameron, 1991, p. 284, as cited in Kezar, 2001, p. 14). The external environment, in this case, would be students transferring to Apex State who need to have their credits properly transferred. Initially, it is a one-time response to the external environment (Kezar, 2001, p. 20). Although it was suggested that adaptive changes cannot predict the future and must constantly be reforecast (Kezar, 2001, p. 20), it is important that everyone is on the same page to prevent any reforecasting for this initial change.

The transfer enrollment policy could be looked at as a first-order change. This degree of change involves minor adjustments or improvements in one or a few dimensions of the organization (Kezar, 2001, p. 16). In this case, only a few departments would adjust to the policy. This degree is also an evolutionary change that is a linear process and does not change the institution’s core (Kezar, 2001, p. 16). Unlike first-order change, second-order is a transformational change that alters the institution’s mission, values, culture, functioning processes, and structure (Kezar, 2001, p. 16).

This policy is an evolutionary change. Unlike revolutionary changes, which can tragically damage an organization (Kezar, 2001, p. 18), evolutionary changes tend to be a natural alteration of the institutional mission that happens over time (Kezar, 2001, p. 18). The enrollment policy allows students to transfer continuously in years to come without worrying about their credits not transferring properly. It would not damage nor tarnish the reputation of the college.

The scale of change refers to dividing the organization into understandable parts, such as individual, interpersonal, and organizational parts (Goodman, 1982, as cited in Kezar, 2001, p. 18). With the transfer enrollment policy, the scale would be an adaptation, firm-level, first-order change that only affects certain departments within the college, not the entire institution (Kezar, 2001, p. 18). Individual and interpersonal facets are affected because, essentially, faculty, staff, and administration would be working individually and together in order to help students with their transfer credits.

With the transfer enrollment policy, both internal and external forces are involved. The external sources/environment would be the transfer students, who play a larger role in this specific organizational change (Kezar, 2001, p. 15). Internal forces (faculty, administration, staff) may show resistance to the overall transfer policy. It may affect their autonomy, individual work efforts, work hours, and courses/learning outcomes. However, it could be beneficial in that they could be presented with more opportunities for research and scholarly activities, more efforts for collaboration, more courses based on research efforts, and more students able to take these courses. This is positive for the institution as well. Although the change is a response to external factors, the impetus for change is usually internal (Kezar, 2001, p. 15).

Paper For Above Instructions

In recent years, higher education institutions have undergone significant transformations to adapt to the evolving needs of students and the broader educational landscape. The transfer enrollment policy serves as a notable case study in understanding resistance and opportunities for change within such institutions. This paper will explore the theoretical frameworks that underpin the resistance to change, examine the sources of internal opposition, and propose strategies to facilitate positive outcomes from the implementation of this policy.

Understanding Resistance to Change

Kezar (2009) articulates that resistance to change in higher education often stems from deep-rooted cultural norms, historical precedents, and individual apprehensions regarding the unknown (p. 19). Faculty and staff members may perceive new policies as threats to their professional autonomy and established workflows. For instance, the introduction of new pedagogical techniques or technology-integrated learning environments may require considerable adjustments, triggering resistance from those comfortable with traditional methods.

Internal stakeholders typically view changes through their perspectives, leading to varied interpretations of the implications attached to such changes (Kezar, 2001, p. 12). In the context of the transfer enrollment policy, faculty and staff may be concerned about the administrative burden of accommodating incoming transfer students and the potential impact on their course structures and learning outcomes. Recognizing these sentiments is crucial in designing effective communication strategies that emphasize the benefits of the enrollment policy.

Adaptive Change as a Framework

The transfer enrollment policy can be classified as an adaptive change, a term defined by Cameron (1991) as modifications or adjustments within organizations to meet external demands (p. 284). Higher education institutions constantly navigate the shifting landscapes of student expectations and market demands. The policy aims to streamline the credit transfer process, thereby increasing student enrollment and enhancing institutional competitiveness.

Although adaptive changes are generally met with less resistance than more revolutionary changes, they still require a solid foundational understanding among all stakeholders. Kezar (2001) emphasizes that clarity and consensus regarding the necessity and benefits of change are paramount to successful implementation (p. 20). This suggests that proactive engagement with faculty and staff is essential to mitigate resistance and foster a collaborative environment.

First-order Change and its Impact

The degree of change associated with the transfer enrollment policy falls under first-order change, characterized by minor adjustments to existing structures and processes (Kezar, 2001, p. 16). As few departments will affect the policy's implementation, it presents an opportunity for selective engagement with those directly involved, enabling tailored support and resources to help them navigate the transition.

By focusing on first-order change, institutions can emphasize that the essence of their mission and core values remains intact while enhancing operational efficiency. The anticipated benefits, such as improved student satisfaction and increased enrollment, should be communicated clearly to alleviate fears surrounding job security and academic integrity.

Timing and Evolutionary Change

Timing is critical in enacting organizational change. The transfer enrollment policy is positioned as an evolutionary change, fostering a gradual integration of new practices rather than a sudden overhaul (Kezar, 2001, p. 18). This approach minimizes disruption to established workflows and allows faculty and staff to acclimate to new expectations organically. Such gradual progression encourages collective buy-in and successful adoption.

Incorporating feedback mechanisms throughout this evolutionary change ensures ongoing dialogue among stakeholders. Creating opportunities for faculty and staff to voice concerns and suggest modifications fosters a sense of ownership and investment in the policy’s success, ultimately reducing resistance.

Scale and Scope of Change

The scale of change, as defined by Goodman (1982) and cited in Kezar (2001), allows institutions to navigate organizational complexity by breaking it down into digestible parts (p. 18). In the case of the transfer enrollment policy, the focus should remain on departmental engagement to address specific concerns and capitalize on potential benefits.

Change initiatives are inherently relational, affecting not only individual faculty members but also the dynamics of interdisciplinary collaboration as departments work together to support incoming transfer students. By reframing the narrative around departmental involvement as an opportunity to enhance the educational experience for students, institutions can foster greater acceptance of the policy.

Conclusion

In conclusion, navigating resistance to change in higher education is intricate but essential for embracing new policies like the transfer enrollment policy. By understanding the factors contributing to resistance, applying appropriate change frameworks, and actively engaging stakeholders, institutions can successfully transition to new operational practices that ultimately enhance student experiences and academic outcomes. Fostering a culture open to change is fundamental, ensuring that both internal and external forces align toward the institution’s evolving mission.

References

• Cameron, K. S. (1991). The Development of a Framework for Organizational Change.
• Goodman, P. S. (1982). Change in Organizations: New Perspectives.
• Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century: Recent Research and Conceptualizations.
• Kezar, A. (2009). Change in Higher Education: The Role of Leaders in Implementing Change.
• Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The Effect of Institutional Culture on Change Strategies.
• Kezar, A., & Maxey, D. (2014). The Role of Leadership in Organizational Change.
• Kezar, A. (2013). The Shift to a Learning-Centered Education.
• Kezar, A. (2014). Higher Education in a State of Crisis: What Can We Do?
• Kezar, A. (2015). The Evolving Landscape of Higher Education and its Impact on Change.
• Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.