Stages of Commitment Stages of Commitment to Change:to Change:

Leading Institutional EngagementLeading Institutional Engagement

Lorilee R. Sandmann, University of GeorgiaJeri Childers, Virginia Tech

National Outreach Scholarship ConferenceOct. 2, 2012

How can we assess lines of commitment and irreversibility?

Engagement Academy for University Engagement Academy for University LeadersLeaders

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 FrameworksTheoretical Frameworks• Stages of Commitment

– Threshold of understanding– Line of commitment– Line of irreversibility– Institutionalization

Commitment CurveManaging at the Speed of Change, Conner (2006)

Holland MatrixHolland Matrix

• 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

Level One:Low Relevance

Level Two:Medium Relevance

Level Three:High Relevance

Level Four:Full Integration

Adapted from Holland (2006), Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning

Institutional Competency ModelInstitutional Competency Model

Lead Resource Development

Develop a Vision, Roles & Plan for Engagement/ Engaged Scholarship

Develop & Maintain Strategic Engagement

Operations

Customize Change Strategies to Support

Engagement

Culture

Commitment

Alignment

Integration

Impact

Develop Programs with Impact

Read the Institutional and Community

Context

Communicate Impact Statically

Change ModelChange Model

Institutional ChangeInstitutional Change

Assess Culture & Commitment and Establish Roles & the Team

Activate Commitment

Guide Implementation

Childers & Sandmann, 2011, adapted from Conner, 2006

Level of Institutional CommitmentLevel 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 DesignResearch 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?

FindingsFindings

• Knowledge is the foundation for change Knowledge is the foundation for change Changes start with individuals firstChanges 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 unit-level (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…Results tell us…• Transformation of

knowledge into practice tends to occur at a small-scale 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 Contextual factors play important roles in change initiation and sustainabilityin 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…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 Change represented by institutional location of Holland Matrixlocation 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 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 ChangeInstitutional Change

Assess Culture & Commitment and Establish Roles & the Team

Activate Commitment

Guide Implementation

Childers & Sandmann, 2011, adapted from Conner, 2006

Where is your organization?Where is your organization?

• Stages of Commitment– Threshold of understanding– Line of commitment– Line of irreversibility– Institutionalization

Commitment CurveManaging at the Speed of Change, Conner (2006)

For More InformationFor More Information

• Lorilee Sandmann

University of Georgiasandmann@uga.edu

• Jeri Childers

Virginia Tech

jlc@vt.edu