Institutional Changemaking to Support Transfer Student Success
For successful transition, integration, and retention of transfer students, institution-wide efforts for creating supports for this population is paramount (Marling & Jacobs, 2011). First-order changes include those efforts that require minor tweaking to existing systems and structures, tend to be linear and less time consuming, with a minimal need to obtain buy-in from other constituents (Kezar, 2018). These changes are easier and more typical at higher education institutions. For example, providing centralized resources through an institutional webpage that shares academic, social, and financial information may only require staff with familiarity of transfer student needs and resources on campus to work with the campus web developer.
Second-order change includes efforts that must address “underlying values, assumptions, structures, processes, and culture” (Kezar, 2018, p. 71) in order to create change. Second-order change or deep change is more complex, requires collaboration at multiple levels within and outside the institution, and is multidimensional in terms of values, interest, and ways of thinking (Kezar, 2018). This type of change is a slow and strategic process. Change agents engaged in deep change work are also likely to face increased resistance to their efforts from internal and external stakeholders. Reconstructing systems within the institution and creating a transfer-receptive culture would require complex, second-order change efforts. Kezar (2018) notes that some changes that first appear to be simple, first-order changes, may in fact require deep, second-order change efforts and vice versa. It would be beneficial to conduct culture assessments to understand the institution’s current values and thoughts on a particular type of change prior to determining the type of change to pursue.
In considering deep change related to institutional culture, change agents must determine the culture and values within various departments, colleges, and divisions in their institution. In the context of a four-year, public, land grant institution, the culture and values of the city and state in which the institution functions also play a role in successful changemaking. Higher education institutions of this type are typically decentralized with multiple administrative leaders who are perceived to have the authority and power to create deep change. These leaders tend to hold higher ranks and positions within their institutions and others in the institution perceive these leaders as those who can make change. Additionally, institutional upper-level administrators are typically resistant to change efforts that “would cost the institution money and/or could create changes to power relationships on campus” (Morgan, 1997 as cited in Kezar & Lester, 2011, p. 163).
Kezar (2018), citing research from the past 20 years, suggests that leadership should be redefined as the creation of change instead of being defined based on roles and activities such as budgeting or planning. Such a view on leadership would allow change agents without formal positions of authority to be considered leaders. These bottom-up leaders in higher education could not only build coalitions and develop allies but also leverage student relationships and curriculum. The next section serves as a stage to explore community organizing principles and the ways change agents in higher education institutions, who are not in positions of authority, can borrow from grassroots organizing practices to create culture change from the bottom up. Additionally, challenges unique to the higher education context when applying grassroots leadership from community practices are addressed.
