Download RESTRUCTURING IN STUDENT AFFAIRS: and more Slides Corporate Finance in PDF only on Docsity!
ABSTRACT
Title of Document: RESTRUCTURING IN STUDENT AFFAIRS: A CASE STUDY OF TWO RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES Edward Philip Engelbride, Doctor of Philosophy, 2007 Directed by: Frank Schmidtlein, Associate Professor Emeritus, Department of Education Policy and Leadership The higher education system in the United States is generally accepted as the most comprehensive and diverse in the world. Nonetheless it is not immune to internal and external pressures to become more efficient and effective. In the early 1990’s higher education in most states faced declining state appropriations, increased competition for funds, calls for increased accountability, rising costs, increased consumer expectations, and questions about the quality of the educational experience. In responding to these pressures, colleges and universities have undertaken a number of initiatives to increase efficiency and effectiveness and have sought ways to become more “business-like,” adopting ideas from the corporate world. As restructuring became a popular management initiative in the corporate sector, governing boards, governors, presidents and business officers became inundated with information about this type of management "reform" effort (Birnbaum, 2000; Horn & Jerome, 1996). In 2003 restructuring was reported at more than half of all public institutions of higher education. A higher percentage of research universities reported they had undertaken this management initiative. Over 60 percent of those responding to a national survey reported reorganizing student affairs (Carlson, 2003).
Several reasons are given as a basis or rationale for initiating restructuring efforts in student affairs divisions on college campuses (Carlson, 2003; El-Khawas, 1994; Engelbride & Goodale, 1998). Those reasons include anticipated improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, cost reductions, improvement of services, streamlining processes, re-focusing of programs or services, and enhanced utilization of technology. This study focused on the restructuring efforts in the student affairs divisions at two public research universities. Utilizing a case study approach, it explored the impetus, goals, processes and results of the restructuring process. The lessons learned from this research will be useful to higher education practitioners who are interested in restructuring student affairs. Restructuring efforts that utilize an inclusive and participatory process where the goals are understood and open communication appeared to had a higher likelihood of success. Restructuring efforts that limit participation, have unclear goals, and limited communication, appeared less likely to succeed.
ii
Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my wife Mary Beth, and our family. This study was a group effort with many people having to make sacrifices in order for work to continue. I couldn’t have done it without you. To our children, I am pleased to inform you that Daddy is done with his book! Thank you for allowing me to pursue my dream!
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page Acknowledgement iii Table of Contents iv
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page 1.1 Percentage of Total Revenue for Public Institutions from Federal, 5 State, Local Appropriations 2.1 Percentage of CSAO’s Reporting Areas Under Their SupervisionChanged Over a Five-Year Period 46
2.2 Percentage of Student Affairs Divisions Reporting Budget Decreases 46 2.3 How Do Budget Cuts Compare to Cuts in Other Divisions 46 2.4 Percentage of Campuses Where Student Affairs Areas Merged or 47 Consolidated Over the Past Five Years 2.5 Proposals from State-Level Higher Education Restructuring 1989-1994 50 2.6 Institutional Management Level that Decided to Implement Restructuring 54 2.7 State and Local Appropriations as a Percentage of Operating Costs 56 2.8 Percentage of Student Affairs Areas Affected by Restructuring 69 2.9 Percentage of CSAO's Reporting Positions Eliminated as a Result of 82 Budget Changes or Institutional Restructuring 2.10 Restructuring Strategies Employed to Accommodate Budget Decreases 82 3.1 Theoretical Assumptions, Research Questions, and Data Sources 99 3.2 Research Methodology Flow Chart 108
1
CHAPTER I
Introduction This dissertation utilized case study methodologies to examine the restructuring efforts in the student affairs divisions at two public research institutions. Specifically, this study includes an analysis of the impact of the restructuring effort, the goals and processes utilized, and makes recommendations on how to improve future restructuring efforts. Higher education often adopts and adapts management practices that are popular in other sectors of society (Allen & Chaffee, 1981; Birnbaum, 2000). Restructuring efforts in the corporate sector increased dramatically in the late 1980’s (Horn & Jerome,
- and in higher education and student affairs in the 1990’s (Carlson, 2003; Engelbride and Goodale, 1998). These efforts were often characterized by a comprehensive management initiative focused on improving functionality, increasing efficiency and effectiveness, reducing costs, often involving new technologies, and reducing the workforce. The impact of restructuring efforts in student affairs is not well understood. Background The expansion of higher education has created increased opportunities that benefit individual students as well as society as a whole. Colleges and universities, often innovators of creative solutions to complex problems, adopt corporate management approaches to resolve fiscal, personnel, and political issues. Restructuring is a rubric utilized to address a range of concerns on a formal and informal basis.
3
development (The Almanac of Higher Education, 2005). Colleges and universities employ approximately 2.75 million employees who serve as faculty, administrators, or staff members who played some role in helping over 2.2 million students earn a degree in over 400 different fields of study (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005) Campuses range in size from small, specialized institutions with a few hundred students to large multipurpose universities with combined enrollments and workforces that rival the populations of medium-sized cities. Some view colleges and universities as big businesses that need to be managed as such (Bruegman, 1995; Guskin, 1994). To others, they are not corporate entities and should not be subjected to corporate business practices (Gumport, 1993; Horn & Jerome, 1996). State and Federal Appropriations to Higher Education A number of researchers have identified financial constraint as a reason for restructuring. State funding for higher education has not remained constant but has fluctuated over the past several decades (Arnone, 2004; Hebel and Selingo, 2001; Jaschik, 1992; Lively, 1993; Schmidt, 2002). In responding to fluctuating state support, higher education has taken a number of approaches to minimize costs. Some institutions have utilized internal processes such as eliminating academic programs, reducing course offerings, using adjunct faculty, limiting the purchasing of new materials, and increasing class size (Hartle and Galloway, 1997). In addition to these approaches, a number of institutions have adopted the corporate practice of restructuring at the divisional or institutional level. Hartle and Galloway (1997) examined the role Federal policy plays in establishing and altering the environment for higher education. According to Hartle and
4
Galloway (1997) "…efforts to balance the federal budget will result in deep cuts in federal spending." Further, "In addition to the increasingly constrained federal budgetary climate, the shifting budget priorities of state governments make increased support for higher education highly uncertain" (p. 41). Throughout the early 1990’s higher education faced declining state appropriations, increased competition for funds, rising costs, calls for increased accountability, increased consumer expectations, and questions about the quality of the educational experience. After an extended period of sustained growth, higher education experienced its first two-year decrease in state support in 1991-92 (Jaschik, 1992). According to sponsors of a study by Illinois State University, this was the first two-year drop in American history. From 1990-1991 to 1992-1993, state support for colleges and student-aid programs decreased by approximately $500 million dollars. Taking inflation into account, 36 states were providing less money to public colleges and universities than they did two years earlier (Jaschik, 1992). Ed Hines, former coordinator of the study (cited in Jaschik, 1992) states this decline was leading to “…the beginning of a fundamental reshaping of higher education” (A21). According to Hines, instead of seeking ways to support higher education, lawmakers and higher education officials were “…debating how to best allocate funds, eliminate academic programs and define workable missions for colleges” (Jaschik, 1992, p. A21).
6
Potter (2003) reported that half of the states reduced appropriations to public colleges. In 2004, Arnone reported that state spending on public colleges dropped for the first time in 11 years. Adoption of Corporate Management Efforts While some authors (Baldridge, Curtis, Ecker, and Riley, 1991; Birnbaum, 2000; Etzioni, 1991; Gumport, 1993;) have sought to differentiate colleges and universities from the corporate sector, higher education is not immune to internal and external pressures to become more efficient and effective. In responding to these pressures, colleges and universities have undertaken a number of initiatives to increase efficiency and effectiveness and have sought ways to become more “business-like,” adopting ideas from the corporate world (Birnbaum, 2000; Horn & Jerome, 1996). Birnbaum (2000) studied the adoption of business practices in higher education. In studying the lifecycle of management innovations in higher education, Birnbaum proposes that extensive use of a management innovation in a particular setting results in a common knowledge or “conventional wisdom.” As more individuals become aware of or comfortable with an innovation, they explore new sectors where the innovation may be adopted. Boundary-spanning individuals, or those who may work in a number of sectors, may play a role in bringing ideas from one sector to another. Birnbaum identifies these people as "intersector carriers” which: ...might include business leaders or legislators serving higher educationboards of trustees, college presidents appointed to business boards of directors, professional associations formed at least in part to maintain linkages between higher education and external groups, academics who read journals in multidisciplinary areas such as business or human resources management, and consultants who solicit clients in both education and non-educationsectors. (p. 134)
7
Birnbaum (2000) found that the generation of a management innovation in a nonacademic sector and its transference into an academic sector usually results in a "culture lag." The innovation which may have been around for some time in its original sector, is perceived as “new” by the adopting sector (Rodgers, 1995). While it is helpful to understand the processes by which innovations are transferred between sectors, perhaps the most telling aspect of the adoption process is the lack of information about the effectiveness of the innovation in its original or adopted sector. Birnbaum states “In both sectors, initial decisions to adopt management innovations appear to be based on subjective judgements disseminated by peers within a social system rather than analyses of empirical data...” (p. 134). The business world experienced a series of management reforms in the late 1980’s, including downsizing or its derivatives, rightsizing and re-engineering (Cameron, 1994). A fairly familiar term, “restructuring,” took on new importance in the corporate world as the leveraged buy-out frenzy of the 1980’s sought to create larger, more efficient corporations (Horn & Jerome, 1996). As one company bought out another, efforts were made to consolidate the workforce by reducing redundant operations. Efforts to streamline products or services generally resulted in reducing the number of employees or services, thereby reducing costs (Horn & Jerome, 1996). While restructuring is not a new management initiative, the intensity and popularity of restructuring in the late 1980’s glamorized this type of management approach. In a study of 2000 corporate executives in six countries, 94 percent reported that they had engaged in downsizing between 1993-95 (Jenkins, 1997).
9
mission of the organization, to address challenging human resources issues by realigning staff, or to appear to deal with an issue without taking action. Restructuring in Student Affairs Studies by El-Khawas (1994) found that restructuring was taking place at more than half of all public institutions of higher education in the United States. A national survey of Senior Student Affairs Officers or SSAOs, also known as Vice Presidents for Student Affairs or Deans of Students, conducted by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) found that 43 percent of the respondents had eliminated positions because of budget changes or restructuring (Engelbride & Goodale, 1998). A follow-up study done in 1999 by NASPA found 61 percent of the institutions surveyed reported that restructuring was taking place in student affairs (Carlson, 2000). As restructuring became popular in the corporate sector, governing boards, governors, presidents and business officers became inundated with information about this type of management effort. As noted earlier, restructuring was taking place at more than half of all public institutions of higher education (El-Khawas, 1994). While a majority of all public institutions were experiencing varying degrees of restructuring, a higher percentage of research universities had undertaken this management initiative. Seventy- seven percent reported reorganizing administrative units, 59 percent redesigned administrative activity, 56 percent reorganized academic units, and 67 percent reorganized student services (El-Khawas, 1994). In the 1996 NASPA study, one out of every five chief student affairs officers experienced changes in whom they reported to in a five year period (Engelbride & Goodale, 1998). Three out of five SSAOs experienced changes in the areas reporting to
10
them. At research institutions, the percentage of institutions eliminating student affairs positions because of budget changes or restructuring was 57 percent. Sixty-six percent of the research institutions reported mergers or consolidations within student affairs or with departments outside of student affairs. A follow-up study done in 1999 by NASPA found 61 percent of the institutions surveyed reported that restructuring was taking place in student affairs (Carlson, 2000). According to Carlson (2000), the most common source of restructuring was the campus president, who initiated 35 percent of all efforts. The frequency of restructuring in student affairs may be associated with constrained state budgets or declining state appropriations to higher education (Engelbride & Goodale, 1998). If true, student affairs may be subjected to increased restructuring activity in the current economic slump occurring in most states in 2004 when this study was undertaken. Therefore, the lessons learned from this study will be useful to higher education practitioners who are interested in restructuring student affairs.
Purpose of the Study Corporate restructuring efforts and the adoption of those efforts by colleges and universities was noted in the introduction to this study. Corporate entities often share a fairly uniform set of goals or expectations including enhancing profits to improve financial outcomes or improving the "bottom line." These goals are not necessarily consistent with those of higher education and significant differences exist between these two sectors of society (Baldridge et al., 1991; Etzioni, 1991). However, higher education has adopted and continues to adopt management efforts from the corporate world (Birnbaum, 2000). A significant number of institutions in higher education have experienced some degree of restructuring over the past five years. A number of
