Stages of Commitment
to Change:
Leading Institutional Engagement
Lorilee R. Sandmann, University of Georgia
Jeri Childers, Virginia Tech
National Outreach Scholarship Conference
Oct. 2, 2012
How can we
assess lines of
commitment
and
irreversibility?
Engagement Academy for University
Leaders
http://www2.cota.vt.edu/engagementacademy/ea/index.html
•
Who: University leaders from around the world responsible for
developing institutional capacity for community engagement; as
individuals/ teams
•
For the purpose of: Developing and linking the engagement plan to the
university strategic plan
•
Through:
– Substantive curriculum
– Peer networking and benchmarking opportunities
– Institutional case studies
– Coaching sessions with leaders in the field
– Action planning tips, tools, and techniques
– The latest research, models, and strategies in institutional and
community engagement
Theoretical Frameworks
• Stages of Commitment
–
–
–
–
Threshold of understanding
Line of commitment
Line of irreversibility
Institutionalization
Commitment Curve
Managing at the Speed of Change, Conner (2006)
Holland Matrix
Level One:
Low Relevance
Level Two:
Medium Relevance
Level Three:
High Relevance
Level Four:
Full Integration
• Mission
• Leadership (Presidents, Vice Presidents, Deans,
Chairs)
• Promotion, Tenure, Hiring
• Organization Structure and Funding
• Student Involvement & Curriculum
• Faculty Involvement
• Community Involvement
• External Communications and Fundraising
Adapted from Holland (2006), Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning
Institutional Competency Model
Read the Institutional
and Community
Context
Customize Change
Strategies to Support
Engagement
Develop & Maintain
Strategic Engagement
Operations
Culture
Commitment
Alignment
Integration
Impact
Develop a Vision, Roles &
Plan for Engagement/
Engaged Scholarship
Lead Resource
Development
Develop Programs
with Impact
Communicate Impact
Statically
Change Model
The Change
Results
Change
Agents
Leadership
Messaging
Institutional Change
Assess & Institutionalize Change
Guide Implementation
Customize the Change Strategy
Activate Commitment
Align Leadership
Assess Culture & Commitment and Establish Roles & the Team
Childers & Sandmann, 2011, adapted from
Conner, 2006
Level of Institutional Commitment
Measured by:
• Organizational factors outlined in the Holland Matrix
• Action components outlined in the Engagement
Academy for University Leaders institutional competency
model
• Organizational factors related to managing complex
change
• Assessment of stage of institutionalization adapted from
Conner’s (2006) Managing at the Speed of Change
Research Design
• Participants
– 72 participants from the first four cohorts in the Academy
• Method
– Online survey
– A combination of multiple choice and open-ended questions
• Research questions:
– What are the nature and contextual (or antecedence)
factors, characterized by the participants, of institutional
changes of engagement that have occurred on their
campuses after their attendance of the Academy?
Findings
• Knowledge is the foundation for change
Changes start with individuals first
– The survey asked about the participants’ focus on their action plan.
1. Administrators first (22 out of 54, at 40.74%, rating “4”), followed by
faculty/staff (20 out of 55, at 36.36%, rating “4”), then community
members (20 out of 53, at 37.74%, rating “3”) and students (18 out of 53,
at 33.96%, rating “3”)
2. University-wide efforts (16 out of 53, at 30.19%, rating “4”), followed by unitlevel (18 out of 55, at 32.73%, rating “3”). Across-institutional efforts NOT
the focus.
3. Geographically, local and regional components have some priority in action
plan (both at 25% and rating “3”). Nevertheless, they do not reach the same
level of focus as those aspects of the institution (personnel, infrastructure,
etc.).
Results tell us…
• Transformation of
knowledge into practice
tends to occur at a smallscale and situated in an
immediate environment
where more control/
influence is likely
• When learning is problem
based, knowledge and
skills, networking, and
possible solutions
facilitate and transform
action plan
implementation – the
indication of “Customize
the Change Strategy” and
“Guide implementation” in
Change Model.
• Contextual factors play important roles
in change initiation and sustainability
– In the survey, we asked participants about the type of changes they
perceived in their respective institutions:
• Programs change:
– 35 (yes) vs. 19 (no)
• Systems change:
– 34 (yes) vs. 21 (no)
• Policy change:
– 26 (yes) vs. 27 (no)
• Organizational change:
– 36 (yes) vs. 17 (no)
Results tell us…
• More changes have
taken place in
programs, systems, and
organizations
• The policy aspect
appears to be more
resistant to change.
• Boundaries between
programs/units are
more amenable to
change
• Some resistance
related to open systems
nature of higher
education
• Broad social,
economical and political
influence permeate
boundaries
Change represented by institutional
location of Holland Matrix
• The organizational factor of promotion, tenure, hiring
is the weakest among all the organizational factors in
the Holland Matrix. 21 out of 55 (38.18%) respondents
rated “promotion, tenure, hiring” at the Level One, the
highest within the factor (20 at “Level Two”, 14 at “Level
Three”, and 0 at “Level Four”)
• Mission, leadership, and student involvement all
have the highest percentage at the “Level Three,”
respectively with 57.41% (31 out of 54), 50.94% (27 out
of 53), and 68.52% (37 out of 54)
Mapping Institutional Change
• Lowest score of organizational component on “promotion,
tenure, hiring” can be seen as a result of “Assess culture &
commitment and establish roles & the team”, an assessment
that points to a lack of commitment activation when P & T is an
essential organizational factor and may well be a conduct for
explicitly motivating community engagement
• The relative higher score of leadership deserves further
investigation as the responses on contextual factors suggested
leadership for community engagement is contingent on
leadership succession, consequently leadership alignment may
be a continuous process
Institutional Change
Assess & Institutionalize Change
Guide Implementation
Customize the Change Strategy
Activate Commitment
Align Leadership
Assess Culture & Commitment and Establish Roles & the Team
Childers & Sandmann, 2011, adapted from
Conner, 2006
Where is your organization?
• Stages of Commitment
–
–
–
–
Threshold of understanding
Line of commitment
Line of irreversibility
Institutionalization
Commitment Curve
Managing at the Speed of Change, Conner (2006)
For More Information
• Lorilee Sandmann
University of Georgia
sandmann@uga.edu
• Jeri Childers
Virginia Tech
jlc@vt.edu