Implications for Creating a Transfer Receptive Culture
Grassroots leaders looking to create deep change in the culture of their institution must begin to address underlying assumptions and values that inform the existing cultural norms. Sensemaking refers to the ways in which change agents can change existing behaviors, priorities, values, and commitments by changing mindsets (Eckel & Kezar, 2003). Sensemaking allows others to make meaning of the change initiatives as it relates to their own positionality, roles, and responsibilities. Sensemaking recognizes that “perspectives are socially constructed with and through other people who are organizationally situated” (Weick, 1995, as cited in Kezar, 2018, p. 87). Eckel and Kezar (2003) state that sensemaking occurs when individuals attach new meaning to familiar concepts and ideas. Institutional sensemaking, required for second-order change would involve collective processes of sensemaking. That is, individuals within an institution must work together, wrestle, and co-create meaning. Kezar (2018) makes the distinction that this is not “group think” (p. 87) and does not mean adopting another’s point of view. Such a collective institutional sensemaking process, while time-consuming, allows perceptions to change across multiple people in multiple levels within the institution.
Some of the vehicles outlined by Kezar (2018) to increase sensemaking include “(a) ongoing and widespread campus conversations; (b) collaborative leadership; (c) developing cross-departmental working groups; (d) drawing on and discussing external ideas; (e) preparing and giving public presentations; (f) creating documents and concept papers; and (g) flexible vision” (p. 92).
Organizational learning is a rational, data-oriented approach to change people’s mindsets. Organizational learning assumes that if errors are detected, humans will want to address them, creating change (Kezar, 2018). Change agents can leverage institutional transfer student data to highlight transfer shock, graduation and retention rates, and student engagement trends to various constituents to support changing mindsets. By connecting organizational learning back to the educational mission of the institution and the ways in which supporting these students and their retention fulfills the strategic goals of an institution, change agents can tell a story using institutional data to obtain buy-in and change underlying assumptions (Kezar & Lester, 2011, p. 115).
Kezar (2018) recommends the following ways to create organizational learning: “(a) introduce new ideas; (b) acquisition and distribution of information; (c) professional development toward the use of data; (d) interpretation of data and systems thinking; (e) creating groups or teams (f) critical leadership to enable dissonance and prompting doubt; and (g) valuing mistakes” (pp. 99-102).
Sensemaking and organizational learning are intended to change underlying assumptions although they may differ in the following ways. The focus in sensemaking is on social interactions and the ability to make new meaning through dialogue, collaborations, and communication (Kezar, 2018). Sensemaking is useful for second-order change and can occur more easily in large groups. The focus of organizational learning is to allow people to create meaning and problem-solving approaches informed by data (Kezar, 2018). This is useful for first-order change where constituents can identify and address gaps within the existing values and underlying assumptions. Kezar (2018) stresses that organizational learning may be a difficult strategy for grassroots leaders who may not have access to institutional data due to the decentralized nature of the institution and access being controlled by the upper-level administrators. However, Kezar (2018) suggests that by working with grassroots leaders across an institution, and using sensemaking and organizational learning together as opposed to either one on their own, change agents can create deep change. The transfer student success and retention presentation discussed in an earlier section of this paper is an example of using sensemaking and organizational learning to address underlying assumptions about transfer students.
Kezar (2018) also offers strategies for bottom up leaders to leverage “for creating change and exerting agency: (a) intellectual opportunities; (b) professional development; (c) hiring like-minded people; (d) garnering resources; (e) working with students; (f) leveraging curricula and using classrooms as forums; (g) gathering data; (h) joining and utilizing existing networks; and (i) partnering with influential external stakeholders” (p. 139). These strategies also support the educational goals and mission of institutions of higher education and therefore ground the change agents’ practice (Kezar, 2018). Kezar and Lester (2011) highlight the ways in which these approaches are tempered and can add credibility to the grassroot leaders’ efforts.
Finally, change agents using grassroots strategies in higher education can strengthen their ability to mobilize and address underlying assumptions of those constituents within their institution by using a multi-theory approach. Change theories help change agents consider various perspectives in the change process. These theories equip change agents with ways to address sources of resistance, and leverage or mitigate factors that may support or hinder their change initiatives, respectively (Kezar, 2018). A multifaceted framework is also ethical, encourages transparency, and focuses on creating a democratic process across the mobilization, implementation, and institutionalization phases of changemaking (Kezar, 2018). Through this process, change agents can apply research-based theory to the practice of change work. Kezar (2018) describes such an approach that includes applying change theories to analyze the type of change, the context for change, and agency or leadership involved in the change process. A review of change theories and the ways for change agents to use theory to inform their approach to changemaking within their institution is beyond the scope of this paper. However, for change agents in higher education seeking to engage in such a multi-theory approach, the next section illustrates the approach through the example of creating a transfer-receptive culture at a four-year public, research university.
