Lessons in Change

University of Cinncinati

30 April 2001

Dr. Karan L. Watson(in collaboration with Jeff Froyd)

Funded in part by the National Science Foundation through the Foundation Coalition

Presentation

• Motivation for change, with diversity as an example

• Case Study- TAMU’s Integrated First-year

• Ideas about change- How should we model the process of change

• Major components of the Change Model

• Discussion

Female AfA Lat NaA AsA FoNGaTech 1.26 2.20 0.51 0.74 0.93 0.57 Penn State 0.90 0.38 0.36 0.32 0.55 0.23 Illinois UCH 0.80 0.58 0.51 0.48 1.60 0.37 Purdue 1.16 0.45 0.39 0.33 0.57 1.96 Texas A&M 1.15 0.59 1.73 0.34 0.73 0.75 U Mich AA 1.36 1.09 0.33 1.04 0.67 0.20 Cornell 1.22 0.30 0.53 0.49 2.22 1.19 UC Berkeley 1.22 0.34 0.65 0.76 4.31 0.89 U Texas Au 0.95 0.70 1.74 0.52 1.60 0.97 MIT 1.68 1.24 1.23 0.56 1.80 0.94 U Wash 1.08 0.43 0.41 1.79 2.48 0.54 U Wisc Ma 0.94 0.18 0.23 - 0.38 1.67 Stanford 1.39 1.07 1.28 1.83 2.30 1.03

BS

UCinn 0.70

1999/2000 Graduation Ratio: Inst % Women Engr/Nat’l % Women Engr

Female AfA Lat NaA AsA FoNGaTech 0.90 2.36 0.86 - 0.75 4.71 Penn State 1.02 0.79 0.74 - 0.66 4.68 Illinois UCH 0.84 0.47 0.82 - 0.86 4.38 Purdue 0.84 0.37 1.33 - 0.76 5.06 Texas A&M 0.92 0.67 1.70 - 0.51 7.19 U Mich AA 0.95 1.17 1.15 - 1.04 4.92 Cornell 0.90 0.65 1.09 - 2.23 4.35 UC Berkeley 1.37 0.89 1.33 - 1.84 3.82 U Texas Au 0.88 0.37 1.35 - 0.77 5.15 MIT 0.99 0.71 0.83 - 1.50 3.54 U Wash 1.30 0.22 0.34 1.97 1.16 3.27 U Wisc Ma 1.01 0.59 1.52 - 0.39 5.66 Stanford 1.04 0.61 1.19 1.30 2.02 5.03

MS

UCinn 1.03

1999/2000 Graduation Ratio: Inst % Women Engr/Nat’l % Women Engr

Female AfA Lat NaA AsA FoNGaTech 0.88 1.88 1.13 - 1.14 0.83 Penn State 1.04 0.34 1.63 - 0.76 1.06 Illinois UCH 0.60 0.28 1.02 - 1.26 0.88 Purdue 0.94 0.71 0.42 - 1.08 1.35 Texas A&M 0.63 2.17 1.56 - 0.61 1.35 U Mich AA 1.45 2.12 1.09 - 1.02 0.99 Cornell 1.24 1.25 6.74 - 0.70 0.95 UC Berkeley 1.44 0.57 1.71 - 1.51 0.60 U Texas Au 0.84 0.32 0.76 - 0.88 1.03 MIT 1.21 0.74 0.89 2.34 0.96 0.85 U Wash 0.94 0.79 - - 2.42 0.61 U Wisc Ma 1.51 - 1.36 5.40 0.16 0.91 Stanford 1.25 1.08 1.29 2.56 1.13 0.89

PhD

UCinn 0.58

1999/2000 Graduation Ratio: Inst % Women Engr/Nat’l % Women Engr

BUT, percentages are so different from one field to the next, SO I’ll ratio by comparing to national average per field and weighting the size of the program

(% women grad. in field local) (# grads in that field local)

(% women grad. In field Nat'l) (# grads in engr. local)

fields

Total BS MS PhDUCinn 0.78 0.62 1.05 0.46TAMU 1.05 1.08 0.89 0.94Purdue 1.04 1.07 0.94 1.11UIll-ChU 0.88 0.91 0.97 0.67UMich 1.18 1.42 1.15 1.02UWash 1.18 1.20 1.23 1.09PennSt 0.86 0.76 0.88 0.94

Faculty at TAMU

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Full/Assoc Level National

Full/Assoc Level TAMU

Asst Level National

Asst Level TAMU

Full/Assoc Level National 3.3% 6.1% 8.9% 19.6% 22.8%

Full/Assoc Level TAMU 4.1% 5.6% 2.9% 15.8% 16.4%

Asst Level National 14.6% 24.4% 19.4% 38.9% 45.5%

Asst Level TAMU 19.35% 15.4% 28.2% 34.9% 45.2%

EngrPhysical Science

Math & CSLife and Related

Sciences

Social & Related

Sciences

Various TAMU InterventionsVarious Interventions 1997

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Total Females Under rep Min

1 Yr R

etent

ion

Traditional

FC

CREW

MAPs

Phase 1

In 1997: Total for college was n=1265•Total for FC Integrated Courses was 230•Total for CREW Womens’ 1 Yr Dorm Clusters was 65•Total for MAPs Women Student/Pro Mentoring was 85•Total for Phase 1 5wk summer students needing Math Remediation was 44

Texas A&M University

TECHNOLOGY ENABLED ROOMS13 redesigned classrooms

CURRICULUM INTEGRATIONchanged first- and second-year engineering, math, physics and chemistry for all

students (6 coordinators)upper-division changes in CVEN, PETE, INEN, AERO, MEEN

TEAMING & ACTIVE LEARNINGfaculty workshops, student profiles, industry diversity training

Texas A&M University

ASSESSMENT & EVALUATIONNew professional staff, focus on faculty needs in course

revisions

INCLUSIVE LEARNING COMMUNITIESClusters- 70% first-year students & 25% second-year students, 94 faculty membersIndustry case studies with all first-year studentsGroup Study Workshops

Texas A&M University Performance Benefit: Grades & Standardized Tests

% Gain Greater Test than Traditional

0 5 10 2015

16%Standardized Critical Thinking15%Force Concept Inventory

10%Mechanics Baseline Test10%Calculus Concept Test

When compared to equivalent students in traditional engineering programs, after one year, students in the new curriculum perform better on standardized tests

and better in grades for follow on courses.

Texas A&M UniversityFOCUS ON UNDER-REPRESENTED GROUPS

Better retention

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

% R

eta

ine

d i

n E

ng

ine

eri

ng

TraditionalFC

Calc 2, Phys 2, Engr 2, Chem ( 300 )

Calc 2, Phys 2, Engr 2( 200 )

Calc 2, Engr 2, Chem( 300 )

Independent Courses( 300 )

Clusters areoffered to

students at eachlevel.

PRECALC

CALCULUS 1

BEYONDCALCULUS

1

500

1000

300

Independent Courses( 200 )

Precalc, Chem, Engr 0( 300 )

Calc 1, Phys 1, Engr 1, Engl 1 ( 100 )

Calc 1, Phys 1, Engr 1( 600 )

Calc 1, Engr 1 ( 150 )

Independent Courses( 150 )

Calc 2, Engr 1( 50 )

Independent Courses( 250 )

Numerous Integrated Models to Serve Students

Examples of Texas A&M Engineering Data

In 1994:Women’s 1st yr retention was 3% lower than men’sAnd Underrep min. was 6% lower than non-minorities

In 1999:Women’s 1st yr retention was 1% higher than men’sAnd Underrep min. was 1% higher than non-minorities

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

% o

f g

ro

up

retain

ed

after 1

yr

Trad

FC

Top 10% from HS and 20 pt drop in SATM median

No Pre-calc studentsin FC Pilots

required retention to have 1000 sophomores

Lessons from Foundation Coalition Curriculum Change Experiences

• Focus on faculty behavior, not the curriculum or technology.

• People outside the pilot groups need to be engaged from the beginning.

• Assessment data is necessary but not sufficient.

• Successful change requires energy and time.

• Don’t become surprised or defensive when resistance appears.

• Persevere through turmoil.

• Zealous change champions cannot institutionalize the change by themselves.

• Articulate an explicit process for the change.

• Change occurs in stages

• If you want to facilitate change, then you need to facilitate movement from one stage to the next. Don’t expect a person to change all at once.

• Different people understand different things about change

Change: Oblivious to Need to Action

Nature of Change Nature of Resistance

Organizational Culture

Leadership Change Dynamics

Concepts in Organizational Change

• Who has to change?– Behavior– Attitude– Belief– Value

• What is the timeline for change?

• What are the available resources to fuel change?

Nature of Change

“... we use the term “profound change” to describe organizational change that combines shifts in people’s values, aspirations, and behaviors with “other” shifts to processes, strategies, practices, and systems.... In profound change there is learning. The organization doesn’t just do something new, it builds its capacity for doing things in a new way--indeed, it builds capacity for ongoing change.... It is not enough to change strategies, structures, and systems, unless the thinking that produced those strategies, structures, and systems also changes.”

Senge, Peter, et. al., The Dance of Change

Nature of ChangeProfound Change

• Resistance is inevitable, not bad– People are at different stages in changing

– People move from stage to stage at different rates

– People move from stage to stage in response to different stimuli

– Resistance is similar to turbulence

• Ignorance facilitates resistance; resistance facilitates ignorance• Responses to resistance

– Dismissal: “You’re an idiot.”

– Bulldozer: “You just don’t understand and I will try again to convince you of the correctness of my approach.”

– Let’s talk: “What you say has merit. Let me understand your concerns and let’s review how an alternate proposal might address your concerns.”

– Anticipate: Don’t be placed in a position of selling a curriculum proposal; instead position yourself as responding to a felt need

Resistance

How to Recognize Resistance• Confusion

• Immediate Criticism

• Denial

• Malicious Compliance

• Sabotage

• Easy Agreement

• Deflection (changing the subject)

• Silence

• In-Your-Face CriticismMaurer, Rick, Beyond the Wall of Resistance, Austin, Texas: Bard Press, 1996, chapter 2

Resistance

• Level 1: The Idea Itself (primarily intellectual)– Communicating the Idea

-- Relative Advantage -- Simplicity

-- Compatibility -- Easy to Test

– Involvement

• Level 2: Deeper Issues (primarily emotional)– Listen for and address: Distrust, Bureaucratic Culture, Punishments

and Rewards, Loss of Respect and Face, Fear of Isolation, Events in the World

• Level 3: Deeply Embedded (viewed as enemy)

– Pay attention and attend to issues around

--Historic Animosity -- Conflicting Values and Vision

Maurer, Rick, Beyond the Wall of Resistance, Austin, Texas: Bard Press, 1996, chapter 8

How Intense is the Resistance

What is it?

Culture

“Culture eats change

for breakfast”James Hunt

http://www.top7business.com/archives/management/20000208.htmlJim Hunt, Principal

James W. Hunt & Associates

The "Change II" Management Consulting Firm

Web address: www.jameswhunt.com

What is it?

Levels of Culture

• Artifacts– visible organizational structures and process

– easy to observe, difficult to decipher, ambiguous

• Espoused values, rules, behavioral norms– strategies, goals, espoused rationalizations

– articulated reasons for actions, (theories of action, Argyris)

• Basic underlying assumptions– unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs

– theories-in-use (Argyris)Edgar Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, second edition

• “Leadership takes place every day. It cannot be the responsibility of the few, a rare event, or a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.”

Heifetz, Ronald and Donald Laurie, “The Work of Leadership,” Harvard

Business Review, Jan-Feb 1997

• Leadership is too important to be left in the hands of the few people near the top of the organizational hierarchy.

Leadership

• Change is hard work.

• Leadership begins with values

• Intellectual leads physical

• Real changes takes real change

• Leadership is a team sport

• Expect to be surprised

• Today competes with tomorrow

• Better is better

• Focus on the future

• Learning from doing

• Grow people

• Reflect

Sullivan and Harper, Hope is not a Method

Leadership for Change

• “Get on the balcony”, get perspective

• Identify the adaptive challenge

• Regulate distress: not too high, not too low

• Maintain disciplined attention

• Give the work back to people

• Protect voices of leadership from below

Heifetz, Ronald and Donald Laurie, “The Work of Leadership,” Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb 1997

Leadership for Change

Change Dynamics

Change Ready ZoneKriegel & Brandt“Sacred Cows Make the Best Burgers”

Drone Zone

Challenge

ResourcesCompetencies, Time, Reserves

Change ReadyZonePanic

Zone

Skill level required,Speed of change,Effort to

learn

Late Majority

34%

Laggards 16%

Early Majority

34%

Early Adopters

13%

Innovators3%

Change Dynamics

Type and Distribution of Adopters

Rogers, Everett M., Diffusion of Innovations, fourth edition

Oblivious to needs, desires,

or effortsAwareness that

things are happening

Interest in the things that are

happeningDecisions about

what is happening

Commitment to aid or resist the changes that are

happening

Action

Passive Information Gathering

Active Information Gathering

Change: Oblivious to Action

Betrayal

Denial

Crisis

Search for Solution

Energy for the Job

Time

Individual’s Approach to Change

Search forSolutions

IdentityCrisis

Denial

Betrayal TIME

Group’s Approach to Change