Understanding the Change Processes Resulting from Accreditation – Literature review Example

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper “ Understanding the Change Processes Resulting from Accreditation” is an affecting variant of a literature review on education. Van de Ven and Poole (1995) define change as the occurrence of a difference in single or multiple perspectives of an entity. They propose that this difference takes place over time. They add that people do not always respond positively to change. The implication is that initiators and champions of change must anticipate resistance and determine ways of obtaining support for the change process. Burnes (1996) observes that organizational change alludes to comprehending transformations within organizations.

The alterations take place among individuals and teams or collectively, across an organization. Birnbaum (1991) proposes that some of the main characteristics of higher education institutions that influence organizational change include their unique culture, values, institutional status, multiple authority, and power structures, bureaucratic decision-making, shared governance, staff tenure and commitment, goal ambiguity, administrative and professional values. Change ProcessAnalysis of organizational change processes in institutions is necessary because higher education faces constant pressure to respond to a dynamic environment. Accreditation facilitates the introduction of organizational changes that ameliorate the quality of higher education (Vaira, 2004).

The accreditation process accelerates integration, stimulates cooperation, and motivates higher learning institutions to introduce ongoing quality enhancement programs. In addition, accreditation triggers the development of new leadership in higher education to support quality improvement programs (Hearn, 1996). Typology of Organizational Change Models EvolutionaryEvolutionary models include biological and social evolutionary theories. They posit that change is a slow series of transformations that occur gradually under environmental influences (Kezar, 2011). The implication is that change depends on situational factors, organizational circumstances, and environment. Evolutionary models, like cultural theories, argue that change is slow (Texas A& M University, 2012).

Unlike teleological theories, evolutionary models perceive that change is deterministic, meaning that people do not have a significant effect on the type and orientation of the change process. Managers do not have the ability to influence people to adapt to change, but they are capable of being proactive and expecting changes in the organizational environment. The key elements of the change process are systems, the ways in which an organization interacts with its environment and evolution. TeleologicalTeleological theories encompass action research, problem-solving, and organizational development (Hearn, 1996).

Teleological models cover concepts such as deliberate planning and adaptive learning. They assume that changes occur because organizations recognize the need for transformation. Additionally, the change process is linear and rational, but individual managers are highly instrumental in bringing about the needed transformation. Another assumption is that the change process is rational, does not deviate from the plan, and occurs under the direct influence of organizational leaders (Carnall, 1995). Moreover, teleological theories assert that organizational changes take place because of deliberate decisions and internal organizational features rather than uncontrollable external factors.

Teleological theories are entirely subjective and exhibit intentionality. Their change methods focus on aspects such as leadership, planning, assessment, rewards, incentives, strategy, reengineering, and restructuring. The leader in the center of the change process because he aligns goals, sets expectations and models behavior, communicates goals, engages, and rewards (Trowler, 2002). The formation of goals, implementation of the change plan, evaluation, and modification are ongoing.


American Psychological Association. 2012. Why is accreditation important? Retrieved 20

December 2012 from http://www.apa.org/support/education/accreditation/importance.aspx#answer

Birnbaum, R. (1991). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (1991). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boyce, M. (2003). Organizational Learning Is Essential to Achieving and Sustaining Change in Higher Education. Innovative Higher Education, 28(2), 119-136

Burnes, B. (1996).Managing change: A strategic approach to organizational dynamics. London: Pitman Publishing

Carnall, C.A. (1995). Managing change in organizations. London: Prentice-Hall.

Carr, D., Hard, K., & Trahant, W. (1996). Managing the change process: A field book for change agents, consultants, team leaders, and reengineering managers. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Eckel, P. & Kezar, A. (2003). Taking the reins: institutional transformation in higher education. Phoenix: ACE-ORYX Press

Elearners. (2012). Regional Accreditation vs. National Accreditation. Retrieved 20 December 2012 from http://www.elearners.com › ... › Degrees & Programs › Accreditation

Hearn, J.C. (1996). Transforming U.S. higher education: An organizational perspective. Innovative higher education, 21(2), 141-54.

Kezar, A. (2011). Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley

Kezar, A. & Eckel, P. (2002). Examining the institutional transformation process: The Importance of sense-making, interrelated strategies, and balance. Research in Higher Education, 43(4), 295-328

NCATE. 2012. About NCATE. Retrieved 20 December 2012 from http://www.ncate.org/

Rajagopalan, N. & Spreitzer, G.M. (1996). Toward a theory of strategic change: A multi-lens perspective and integrated framework. Academy of management review, 22 (1), 48-79.

Texas A&M University. (n.d.). Theories and Models of Organizational Change. Retrieved 20 December 2012 from


Trowler, P. (2002). Higher Education Policy and Institutional Change. Buckingham: Open University Press

Vaira, M. (2004). Globalization and higher education organizational change: A framework for analysis. Higher Education, 48(1), 483–510

Van de Ven, A.H., Poole, M.S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of management review, 20(3), 510-540.

Washington, M. & Ventresca, M. (2004). How Organizations Change: the role of institutional

Support mechanisms in the incorporation of higher education visibility strategies 1874-1995, Organization Science, 15(1), 82-97

Weick. K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us