Understanding the Change Processes Resulting from Accreditation - Literature review Example

Understanding the Change Processes Resulting from Accreditation Name: University: Course: Tutor: Date: Understanding the Change Processes Resulting from Accreditation Change Van de Ven and Poole (1995) define change as the occurrence of difference in a 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 Process Analysis 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 Evolutionary Evolutionary 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. Teleological Teleological 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 is 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. Life cycle Life-cycle models, like the teleological models, posit that organizations are adaptive (Rajagopalan, & Spreitzer, 1996). Unlike the other models, however, life-cycle theories perceive organizational changes in light of the transformations that take place within the life cycle of individuals. These models examine the development, maturity and decline of organizations in phases. Change, therefore, is progressive, rational and part of a phase. Unlike the teleological models, life-cycle theories do not perceive change as occurring because people desire it or see its necessity. Rather, the assumption is that change is natural. It is impossible to stop or alter it (Trowler, 2002). Life-cycle models also assume that the organizational environment is uncertain. The implication is that employees and managers need to adjust to it through communication, training and development or other structures that enhance growth (Washington, & Ventresca, 2004). One of the life-cycle models suggests phases of organizational development as involving “high growth, greater efficiency, diseconomies of scale, crisis and transformation or cessation of functioning” (Kezar, 2011, pp. 37-38). High growth is the phase in which an organization is developing, leading to a great deal of learning and experimenting. This phase resembles the adolescence and youth period of human development. Greater efficiency is similar to early adulthood, when an organization has energy and highly trained employees such that it attains high profits. Diseconomies of scale occur when the organization expands, employees illustrate low commitment levels, there is emphasis on tradition and productivity reduces. If this stage persists, the company enters into the crisis phase because of loss of profitability. Transformation may occur, or an organization may enter into decline by ceasing to function. As Kezar (2011) points out, “Life-cycle models characterize certain types of changes as typical within parts of the life cycle” (p.38). For instance, changes in processes are common in the maturation phase, whereas structural change is typical in the centralization stage. Life-cycle models, unlike the teleological theories, perceive the people throughout the organization as critical to the change process. They propose that change will not take place successfully unless everyone in the organization prepares for it (Washington, & Ventresca, 2004). Unlike the teleological model, life cycle models shift emphasis from the leader to activities and people throughout the organization. Dialectical Dialectical theories include social interaction and political models. Unlike the other theories, dialectical models argue that organizational change takes place when opposing forces interact (Weick, 1995). The models posit that organizations go through prolonged durations of evolutionary change and short durations of revolutionary transformation. Evolutionary change reflects the interaction between communitarianism and individualism, which are opposites. Revolutionary change occurs as due to an impasse between the opposites (Kezar, 2011). In this case, there is a conflict between an organization’s belief systems such that radical change results. Dialectical models perceive conflict as an integral part of human interaction. Change results in the modification of an organization’s identity or ideology (Van de Ven, & Poole, 1995). Unlike in the other theories, the change processes encompass persuasion, bargaining, raising awareness, power, influence and social movements. Unlike the teleological models, dialectical models do not perceive change as rational (Burnes, 1996). They posit that intuition, human needs and motivation drive change. For instance, when resources are abundant, few individuals take an interest in change or enter into conflict. Similarly, dialectical theories do not perceive that everyone in the organization participates in the change process (Bolman, & Deal, 1991). The view is that few people take an interest in change. Moreover, in dialectical models, change does not necessarily lead to progress (Rajagopalan, & Spreitzer, 1996). At the same time, social interaction is more important than environmental assessment, planning or evaluating an organization’s life cycle (Kezar, 2011). Nonetheless, dialectical models have tenets similar to cultural theories. This is because dialectical models assess the ways in which dominant cultures influence organizational processes. In this case, organizations are similar to political bodies in which dominant groups use their power to safeguard the status quo and their privileges. Dialectical models also align with cultural models because of their focus on social movements, sub-cultures or sub-groups (Van de Ven, & Poole, 1995). Social cognition Unlike the other models that arose from functionalist perspectives of viewing organizations, social cognition models emerged from a social-constructivist or phenomenological angle (Kezar, 2011). The functionalist approach maintains that only one organizational entity exists that all individuals perceive in the same manner. Social cognition models perceive that change connects directly with learning ((Rajagopalan, & Spreitzer, 1996). The view is that those who resist change need to learn new ways of doing things. These models propose that elements of the change process include knowledge structures, sense making, cause mapping and cognitive dissonance (Kezar, & Eckel, 2002). Unlike the other theories, social cognition models claim that drivers of organizational change are cognitive dissonance (clash of actions and values that brings change) and appropriateness, rather than necessity, developmental challenges, leaders’ vision or ideological conflicts (Burnes, 1996). Unlike teleological and life cycle theories, social cognition models do not perceive change as linear or occurring in phases. Instead, change is multifaceted, interconnected and consists of an overlapping sequence of tasks and obstacles. Change results in a new worldview (Carnall, 1995). Cultural Cultural models combine the tenets of dialectical and social cognition theories. Cultural models, unlike most of the other theories, do not perceive an organization as a rational entity with rules and norms. These models, like dialectical models, stress irrationality, in addition to, complexity and fluidity of organizations, which is a similar tenet to that of social cognition models (Boyce, 2003) Cultural theories, like life cycle models, assume that change takes place naturally to respond to transformations in the human environment because cultures are dynamic. Cultural theories, like social cognition models, posit that social movements reflect political and cultural change. Another similarity lies in the assumption that change is non-linear, unpredictable, continuous, dynamic and irrational (Weick. 1995). In cultural models, the change process is slow and takes long. It entails transformations in values, myths, beliefs and rituals. Unlike the other theories that emphasize the structural, cognitive and human elements of organizations, cultural models focus on their symbolic nature (Rajagopalan, & Spreitzer, 1996). Teleological theories This study proposes that the teleological theory most suitable for this research is Total Quality Management (TQM). This theory assumes that change does not occur due to long-standing cultures, practices and values that hinder the desired transformation within an organization. According to Kezar (2011), “Authors within this tradition point out that most organizations pursue quality but that they have not examined the obstacles that prevent the change necessary to create quality, such as embedded values and structural or cultural hindrances” (p.34). The TQM model suggests that organizational leaders create a new, quality culture to counter barriers to change (Carnall, 1995). Strategies to achieve this include developing and focusing on the mission, vision and outcomes of the organization, in addition to, cultivating supportive and creative leadership. Moreover, retraining of individuals should take place on an ongoing basis. In other words, institutions ought to implement systematic professional development programs for their staff (Kezar, & Eckel, 2002). Further, organizations should make quality decisions using data and facts. Similarly, the new culture should enhance collaboration, delegation of decision-making and proactive planning of change. The reason for selecting this theory is that accreditation is about promoting the quality of education and learning institutions. For colleges and universities to receive accreditation, they must demonstrate that the quality of instruction, programs and staff satisfy existing standards. Failure to prove this leads to denial of accreditation. The implication is that learning institutions must identify internal hindrances to the quality of the instruction that they provide. They must undergo transformation to create a new culture that promotes the quality of their programs and staff to such a level that they are eligible for accreditation (Bolman, & Deal, 1991). They can achieve this through the teleological strategies mentioned earlier. For example, learning institutions could use the TQM model to update their courses and programs continually to align them with labor market needs. In so doing, they enhance not only the quality of instruction, but also the graduates that they produce. Similarly, through the provision of on-the-job training and staff development opportunities, learning institutions ensure that their faculty members refresh their pedagogical knowledge and skills. Thus, the professional dispositions of teachers improve, leading to quality service for students. The TQM model can enhance student satisfaction by enabling learning institutions to deliver the type and quality of educational programs they desire. In addition, the TQM model emphasizes the need to involve individuals throughout the organization in the change process through the creation of teams and enhancing collaboration (Carr, Hard, & Trahant, 1996). Within learning institutions, quality advancement cannot occur without the support of the administration, board and even parents. Thus, everyone throughout the institution has an active role in promoting the quality of instruction and educational programs. In sum, the advantages of the TQM model to learning institutions include improved quality of programs, instruction and staff, enhanced competitiveness, collaboration and communication, innovation and creativity. These benefits increase the likelihood of institutions receiving accreditation from the relevant agencies. Accreditation Importance of accreditation For a student, accreditation is important because it gives the assurance that an academic program or institution is of high quality, meets the set standards and is accountable for attaining the intended goals (APA, 2012). By studying in an accredited institution, the chances of a student finding employment increase because the certification acquired is credible. For a faculty member, accreditation serves as a formal framework for the continuous assessment and enhancement of educational programs and outcomes (APA, 2012). It provides a process through which students, teaching and administrative staff can collaborate in promoting the mission of their educational institution. For the public, accreditation is proof of the accountability of an institution or program in that it demonstrates educational outcomes consistent with its objectives (E-learners, 2012). Types of accreditation National accreditation covers institutions across a nation or in other countries. It evaluates certain types of institutions. For instance, the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC) accredits institutions offering distance education, whereas the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology (ACCSCT) accredits technology and career programs and institutions (E-learners, 2012). This form of accreditation is voluntary such that it is not obligatory for institutions to apply. In most cases, institutions pursue national accreditation when their instructional content or models differ from most conventional programs. Regional accreditation covers institutions within certain areas of a nation. For instance, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges approves institutions located in New England (Maine, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont and Rhode Island) (E-learners, 2012). Other agencies accredit institutions in other states. Like national accreditation, this form is voluntary such that institutions do not need to apply. Specialized accreditation is program-based and, therefore, applies to certain departments or programs within an institution. This form of accreditation is available from agencies interested in certain fields of education or professional bodies. Such agencies do not accredit entire institutions, but rather, programs that train students to work in certain industries. For instance, the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET) is in charge of accrediting engineering programs in higher learning institutions (E-learners, 2012). NCATE as an accreditation agency The Council for Higher Education Accreditation and the U.S. Department of Education acknowledge the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) as the professional body in charge of accrediting institutions charged with the role of teacher preparation. On its establishment in 1954, NCATE replaced AACTE, the entity previously in charge of accreditation of teacher education institutions. According to NCATE (2012), “NCATE is a coalition of Member Organizations of teachers, teacher educators, content specialists, and local and state policy makers. All are committed to quality teaching, and together, the coalition represents over 3 million individuals” (p.1). Currently, 670 institutions already possess NCATE accreditation, whereas approximately 70 more others are awaiting approval. NCATE accredits schools, departments and colleges of education with the aim of promoting high quality preparation of teachers, administrators and school specialists. Consequently, this leads to the recruitment of competent educators who ensure high quality student instruction. The body uses a performance-based system to accredit teacher-training institutions (NCATE, 2012). NCATE standards The Executive Board of the NCATE revised its accreditation standards on October 20, 2007. The entity has six standards covering “Candidate knowledge, skills and professional dispositions (standard 1); Assessment System and Unit Evaluation (standard 2); Field Experiences and Clinical Practice (standard 3); Diversity (standard 4); Faculty qualifications, performance and development (standard 5), and unit governance and resources (standard 6)” NCATE, 2012). The first standard stipulates that teacher trainees are aware of instructional content and display teaching skills and behaviors essential to student learning. In addition, teacher trainee assessments should show that they satisfy professional, institutional and state standards. The second standard demands the establishment of an evaluation system that gathers and analyzes data concerning teacher trainee qualifications and performance, in addition to, the existing mechanisms to enhance the output of the teacher-training unit and its courses. The third standard requires that the teacher-training unit and institutional partners create, implement and assess field programs and clinical practice. This is to enable trainees and other educators cultivate and illustrate the knowledge, capacities and behaviors essential to student learning. The fourth standard demands the design, implementation and assessment of teacher-training curriculum to ensure candidates acquire and illustrate the professional dispositions vital to student learning. Similarly, assessments should ensure that trainees are capable of dealing with diverse student populations, such as P-12 students and faculty members in higher education. The fifth standard stipulates that faculty members have the necessary qualifications and demonstrate the best practices in instruction, scholarship and service. They must evaluate their effectiveness in relation to teacher-trainee performance. They should work with colleagues in their respective disciplines and institutions. Similarly, the teacher-training unit must assess faculty performance while providing members with opportunities for professional development. The sixth standard requires that teacher-training units have the necessary financial, material, technical and human resources necessary so that the preparation of teacher trainees satisfies state, professional and institutional standards. References 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 http://aled.tamu.edu/440/READ%20-%20Change%20Theory%20Article.pdf 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. Read More