Change is an inevitable component to all organizations. Whether there is change in leadership, restructuring of a division or merger of two companies, organizational change occurs on a small or large scale continuously. As a leader in higher education, one has to be aware that anytime there is a change in senior level leadership (presidents, provosts, deans), there will likely be some change that can/will occur.
For change to be successful it takes a combination of research (theory), strategy (dissection/facilitation) of your organization, as well as leadership that understands the people in the organization in order to motivate them to move forward. Theory based change is something that I took a major interest in during the first few weeks of this course. Kurt Lewin’s planned approach to change is really transcendent through times and I personally am captivated by his theories coming from the scope of social conflict, and a somewhat radical foundation. As a student of leadership, I am often fascinated by how leaders react, lead and emerge through crisis situations. “To a large extent, his interests and beliefs stemmed from his background as a German Jew.” (Burnes, 2006). Lewin worked closely with the problems of minority and disadvantaged groups. A quote that was attributed to Lewin, particularly stuck with me. “To be stable, a cultural change has to penetrate all aspects of a nations life. The change must, in short, be a change in the “cultural atmosphere” not merely a change of a single item.” This is the powerful view of change similarly shared by Dr. Paul Farmer as discussed in the book/journal Mountains Beyond Mountains about his journey to Haiti.
If change is calculated, strategic, with an open system approach, there is a higher likelihood of the “cultural” component to manifest. Changing a culture is complex, as it forces you to take a bottom up approach and pay close attention to the individuals who make up your organization. The people who make the “machine” run properly are actually sincerely involved in the change. Lewin’s 3-step model of “Unfreezing”, “Moving” and “Refreezing” is all in composing as it allows the organization to communicate the need for change, analyze the factors that it will take to make the change happen, unleash a vision (and strategy for facilitating the vision), and finally allows the organization to anchor itself down in the mission. The “change” becomes the new norm.
Group intervention/facilitation can be a key element to the “unfreezing” phase of Lewin’s model. It is imperative to analyze your organization so that you will know which facilitation will work best relative to your organization’s problem, component to change and objective. Future Search and Appreciative Inquiry are by far my favorites. I like the idea of structured collaboration. These two interventions allow you to analyze your organization through different scopes. It is imperative to analyze your organization through the concept of an open system. Once ideas are brought to the forefront through structured activity and communication, positive (and powerful) things can happen.
What I learned about organizational change is that it should be comprised of at least the following:
1. Effective leadership- to administer and monitor vision.
2. Analyzing period-figure out the needs and goals
3. Genuine collaboration-staff, stakeholders, etc
4. A precise yet flexible strategy
5. Motivate others to encourage buy-in
6. Execution—effective leaders from within
7. Investment—involvement by all in establishing a culture where change is the norm.
As the leader of an organization, while sometimes you can’t control when change occurs (e.g. mergers, senior leadership restructuring), you must approach it with a strategy. This is important to have in place for those who for those individuals who follow you. It also helps emphatically if you are internally driven and invested in the need and execution of change, as your energy will serve as the motivation for your organization to follow, e.g. Dr. Paul Farmer.
ajgordonblog 
Your comment of “If change is calculated, strategic, with an open system approach, there is a higher likelihood of the “cultural” component to manifest.” But I have to ask the question – how many times does this actually happen?
With my higher education background, I think too many times we are looking for the “quick fix.” All of a sudden there is a hot new theory out there regarding something, and then all of a sudden we are off and running chasing that. I definitely do not call that calculated or strategic. Or, sometimes we have to fix a problem quickly, either in personnel or office/area process. There isn’t always time to be calculated and strategic either.
I think there is an effort to be calculated and strategic in higher ed but when that happens, the whole system is not engaged. Too many times, the leadership is doing something that appears behind the scenes and their view of communication is to communicate when it’s all over. If they would communicate from the beginning the change would go much better!
I agree. We are often reacting to problems instead of taking proactive approaches in higher education. Knee jerk theory. Sometimes, when you see issues that are small(with the potential of blowing up), it is time to put out some preventative communication. Then you can begin to address issues as they occur. Often times, issues are swept under the rug for lack of time, resources and personnel. I find that making small incremental changes gives you the opportunity to be strategic. You are correct in that communication is key. Even if you do not like the change that is about to occur, It is important for all to know the expectations that will arise from a particular change. That communication must begin at the top and it has to be thoroughly articulated to middles who will have to thoroughly communicate to the bottoms.