Learning Resources

Abstract: For most institutions of higher learning to thrive amid the shifting demographics, financial outlooks, and value propositions of the 21st century, they must design and implement change that is comprehensive rather than compartmental. Since such change comes hard to institutions steeped in century-old traditions, there are few colleges or universities that have undertaken it. Hiram College (OH) is an exception. Given the dearth of lessons from the field, the Hiram College president offers this constructive and realistic example of systemic change and the five possible steps that academic leaders and trustees elsewhere might consider before triggering it.

Abstract: From demographics and social change to politics and technology, many trends impact planning in higher education. SCUP’s Trends for Higher Education is designed to help you and your institution make sense of the most significant evolutionary forces.

Abstract: This article applies the three stages of change (mobilization, implementation, and institutionalization) to the academic curricular process change that occurred during the 2014–2015 academic year at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Reflecting on the manner in which this major initiative was conceptualized and executed has revealed an inadvertent yet seamless application of Curry’s (1992) organizational change model. Throughout each stage of this organizational change, some inherent principles were maintained while balancing the required condensed timeline for completion. These principles included consistent and transparent consultation with many branches of the university community and revision of proposed processes based on feedback from community members. The goal of the authors in sharing the change process at IUP is to provide potential insights for others on recognizing a need for organizational process revision. The authors highlight the actions taken at IUP, offer recommendations, and identify potential hazards to institutions contemplating organizational change.

Abstract: Today we find our institutions barraged by the forces of change, and dutifully we respond. Over time, however, we end up molding our institutions to these forces to our own peril, and now U.S. higher education is on the ropes, so to speak. We believe education leaders should take hold of our destinies and shape our industry not by the forces of lackluster government policy, self-serving press and media, and for-profit mega corporations, but to serve true learning and personal growth. There are many tools we can use to lead change. This article introduces the concept of Positive Turbulence, an intentional, disruptive approach for positive change, to the education industry.

Abstract: From demographics and social change to politics and technology, many trends impact planning in higher education. SCUP’s Trends for Higher Education is designed to help you and your institution make sense of the most significant evolutionary forces.

This edition focuses broadly on change in higher education. We look through an array of different lenses to gain some perspective on issues and opportunities that appear to be on the horizon—or at our doors.

Abstract: Higher education institutions are under pressure to make transformative changes aimed at improving key areas of performance: access, affordability, price, and productivity to name a few. Institutions have responded with budget cuts and efficiency gains with incremental success. Yet paradoxically the very success they have achieved has also impeded the transformative change their stakeholders seek.

Many theories exist to support adaptive change in higher education. A single foundational theory of organizational change in industrial enterprises explains the paradox and illustrates how incremental success slows transformative change. Structural contingency theory, introduced by Alfred Chandler in 1962, encapsulates a number of higher education change theories, further grounding practitioners as they assist institutions in adapting to changing conditions and informing their planning efforts.

To achieve transformative change requires a model of integrated planning to synthesize unit improvements into institutional change greater than the sum of its parts. This article presents structural contingency theory to explicate the change process and introduces institutional portfolio management as an operational model of integrated planning. It speaks to an audience of practitioners seeking pragmatic solutions to very real and present problems.