Reorganization at Transformation Community
College:
Becoming a High Performance Institution (B)
This case was written
by Catherine H. Augustine, doctoral candidate at the University of Michigan,
under the supervision of Professor Marvin W. Peterson at the Center for
the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at the University of Michigan.
The project was funded as part of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation's "Kellogg
Forum on Higher Education Transformation" initiative. This case is
designed as the basis for class discussion on managing change in higher
education institution; it is not intended to illustrate either effective
or ineffective handling of an administrative situation.
Reorganization at Transformation
Community College:
Becoming a High Performance Institution (A)
Back to Educational Transformation
Home Page
Life under the Matrix - Back
to Top
Despite Garrison's hope that the matrix would work and would propel
TCC toward a high performance organization, life under the matrix was
not the proverbial bed of roses. The problems were deep and diverse; many
had not been foreseen during the planning phases. Some of these problems
were prevalent college-wide while others evidenced themselves in various
ways on the different campuses.
At Waterford
The Campus Vice President at Waterford was also the college-wide Instructional
Vice President. She was responsible for establishing both college-wide
and campus-based core teams. From all accounts, the number of hours she
worked increased under the matrix. There were four deans who had offices
at Waterford during the matrix: a Dean of Instructional Management Systems,
a Dean of Instructional Productivity, a college-wide dean for Health and
Business, and a college-wide dean for Advanced Technologies and Applied
Science. These deans, too, logged extra hours as they traveled from campus
to campus, carrying out their college-wide responsibilities.
Many Waterford faculty members decided to completely ignore the matrix
and only focus on their teaching. They were retiring soon anyway and did
not care whether the matrix succeeded or not. They simply could not be
bothered. Classified staff members on campus were confused by all the
changes but continued to support their offices as best they could.
As the matrix was implemented, Waterford was experiencing a drop in enrollment.
Waterford staff attributed this enrollment decline to a strong local job
market, students attending the Barrymore campuses, increasing competition
for students, and a difficulty in maintaining levels of technology needed
for specific programs. Because of this enrollment decline, Waterford constituents
appreciated the budgeting process under the matrix as it aimed to benefit
the whole college equally.
At Langston
Edward Remington, the Vice President of the Langston campus, was given
the responsibility for student services college-wide. There were three
deans who had offices at the Langston campus: a college wide dean for
Educational Technology; a college-wide dean for K-12 Partnerships and
Developmental Education; and a college-wide dean for Student Services.
Both Remington and his deans had to travel to other campuses for meetings
relating to their functions and much of their time was spent on college-wide
issues. They were on campus less often and faculty and classified staff
could not always find them when a form needed signing or a decision needed
making. In addition to needing him to sign forms, faculty, classified
staff, administrators, and community members missed interacting with Edward
Remington. Whenever one of them did catch Remington on campus they joked
that there had been a "Remington sighting." They believed that
without his attention, their campus would suffer.
Fullerton community members especially believed that the switch to the
matrix had left them unattended. With all the time needed for travel and
college-wide meetings, when would the Langston leaders spend time on community
needs? Community members interpreted the matrix as a move both to take
Edward away from them and to distract them from their mission to become
autonomous.
The change in the budgeting process incurred the most anger from Langston
constituents. Many believe that financial issues were the biggest detractor
from accepting the matrix. Langston staff now had even less authority
over their budget. Since function drove budget, they could not control
how money was allocated for their campus. The growth they were seeing
in enrollment went unrewarded. Langston administrators contacted the newly
instituted institutional research office on a weekly basis, "frantic
for enrollment data that would help in arguing for more money." Faculty
and administrators at Langston resented being downgraded from, as they
saw it, a satellite to a colony. They believed that they had been building
their capacity for serving students in innovative ways. Instead of being
rewarded for these innovations, they saw the matrix as stripping away
their identity.
While they were angry about the matrix, Langston constituents still believed
that they would be their own college soon. Even though they were confused
by the matrix, wondering why Garrison would implement such a ploy to detract
from their goal of autonomy, many still believed autonomy was imminent.
This impending autonomy contributed toward the lack of motivation to make
the matrix work.
At Barrymore Arrowhead
Due to activism of the board members who had opposed the merger between
TCC and the Barrymore vo-tech center, the Barrymore Arrowhead campus was
not stable during the implementation of the matrix. While TCC employees
were trying to adjust to this new organizational structure, some were
also pouring time and energy into ensuring the success of this new campus.
The people responsible for this campus needed to expend this energy, not
only to ensure the success of a start-up, but also to overcome the negative
perceptions that some community members had of this campus. TCC staff
worked hard to alleviate fears that the college would diminish the emphasis
on the secondary programs offered at the campus.
The stress from these campus problems affected college morale. Energy
spent to alleviate this stress left depleted reserves for learning and
supporting the new organizational structure. Employees who were already
worried about the Barrymore Arrowhead campus became cynical toward the
matrix.
This worry was validated in 1997 when a board vote of 4 to 3 undid the
merger. While most of the vo-tech employees remained with the vo-tech
center, one manager became the Associate Vice President for the Longview
and North Barrymore campuses. The undoing of the merger had a negative
impact on how people felt about the matrix. Many believed they had spent
an inordinate amount of time and energy toward the success of the Arrowhead
campus. As this time and energy apparently had been spent for no good,
these constituents did not believe that spending time and energy on the
matrix would be any more worthwhile.
At North Barrymore / Longview
The man from the Barrymore vo-tech who stayed on with TCC was promoted
to Campus Vice President for both the Longview and the North Barrymore
campuses. He also retained college-wide responsibilities for K-16 programs,
developmental education, and vocational education. He had one dean who
served as both a campus dean and the college-wide dean of Arts, Humanities,
and Communications.
The faculty and staff at Longview and North Barrymore really enjoyed
working for their campus vice president, considering him an excellent
leader. Allowing for people to have a voice in decision-making; he has
been described as an inclusive leader who kept no secrets. He focused
on teamwork and camaraderie. Community members also liked him and their
support for the campuses continued to grow.
Although faculty and staff at North Barrymore and Longview continued
to enjoy the challenges of building their programs and services, their
resources to do so grew tighter under the matrix. They believed that the
"strategic" budgeting process was strategically benefiting Waterford
while starving their campuses. While they had some of the same complaints
about the matrix that were prevalent on other campuses, they were mainly
concerned with their financial situation.
College-Wide
The matrix structure has been consistently referred to as "confusing."
While many constituents believed that, in theory, the matrix could work,
they found it both puzzling and agitating. Department chairs had more
people to report to than they had before the matrix. Deans too were confused
about exactly who had responsibility for what. Although splitting responsibilities
for curriculum and day-to-day logistics sounded feasible, issues arose
that could potentially fall under both domains. Who was responsible for
scheduling courses? Was this process a curricular or logistical one? Since
deans were confused, faculty and classified staff found it difficult to
get answers. Classified staff have confessed that they never really understood
which dean was supposed to do what. Instead of reducing the number of
people who were in on any given decision-process, the matrix increased
this number. Even though decisions were made within functions, instead
of within a hierarchical system, deans were not always sure who should
have input. Many people were often involved in any given function. Faculty
and classified staff complained that this confusion left many issues unaddressed.
College employees also had a hard time seeing the results of their work.
They were used to implementing things on their own campuses and seeing
the impact of these implementations on a day-to-day basis. Now that many
of the decisions they were making were affecting the college as a whole,
the impacts were less tangible to the participants.
Several theories attempt to explain this unforeseen confusion. Were the
deans simply not rising to the level of responsibility inherent in a matrix
structure? Were employees simply unable to grasp the concept? Was the
structure itself too unfamiliar, not only as an organizational form, but
also as a structure found in other segments of life? In addition to these
theories, some internal constituents admitted that they intentionally
sabotaged the matrix, refusing to work within its structure. These constituents
saw the matrix as a fad instituted by the President that would reverse
itself in time.
In addition to the confusion, the matrix required more work from almost
every college employee. Campus vice presidents believed that "running
a campus is hard enough" and found it difficult to manage both site
and college-wide responsibilities. They tended to lean on their deans.
The span of control that each dean was responsible for was much larger
than that with which they were comfortable. Many deans found their responsibilities
to be overwhelming. The level of coordination required in making decisions
and setting policies was exhausting. Consensus building slowed decision-making.
No one was receiving any extra money for this extra work.
The confusion and the hard work were hard to overcome, given the range
of emotions that employees were feeling regarding the switch to the matrix
structure. Throughout the college, people were feeling reluctance, loss,
fear and resentment. While they were reluctant to take on new responsibilities,
they were even more reluctant to relinquish old ones. Each campus had
been developing its own budget, albeit with what they perceived to be
inadequate funds. Now deans not only had to build consensus among divers
constituents, but allocate funds using unfamiliar budgeting processes.
Campus vice presidents did not have the same budgetary control they had
prior to the matrix. They lacked funds for things they were accustomed
to funding. Both vice presidents and deans found it difficult to relinquish
making decisions that they were used to making. They resented having to
tell faculty that the decision would have to be made by someone else,
or, more likely, by a team of people.
The matrix was also accompanied by a sense of loss on behalf of faculty,
classified staff, and administrators. Under the matrix, administrators
did not have time to leisurely stroll the hallways of their campuses,
stopping in to say hello to faculty. Faculty missed seeing them. Although
conventional wisdom may suggest otherwise, faculty and classified staff
admitted that they needed more direction and wanted their deans to be
available for them. The deans perceived that the faculty felt undernourished.
Deans too missed having a connection with the people their decisions would
impact. They felt estranged from both their own staff and from their "new"
staff. Since they did not have time to leisurely stroll the hallways of
other campuses, most new relationships were task-oriented and superficial.
The move to the matrix also incurred a sense of fear in faculty and administrators.
The matrix structure pushed people out of their comfort zones. Faculty
and administrators felt fear toward unknown others from distant campuses.
Most everyone was expected to work with people they did not know. Many
of these unknown others had been attributed with negative characteristics
(e.g., incompetence and evil) due to the rabid competition among campuses.
Faculty members had grown comfortable working with their "own"
deans and wanted it to stay that way. Attending each meeting was like
stepping into a cocktail party where half of the guests are complete strangers.
This sense of fear mingled with a sense of resentment. Even worse than
having to get to know new people was the fact that these unknown people
were supposed to make decisions that impacted others' work. Faculty members
were used to walking down the hall to their dean and asking for money
or support to start a new program or service. Since their dean knew (and
trusted) them, this money or support was typically granted if it was available.
Now, faculty members were forced to submit their requests to a much more
formal process of decision-making, involving deans from other campuses
who did not know them and potentially, did not trust them. Many faculty
and staff believed that "outsiders" did not understand the needs
of their particular campus.
This resentment of outsiders was accompanied by resentment toward time
spent on the highway traveling to and from meetings. Due to the traffic
congestion on the highways connecting the campuses, traveling from one
campus to another, faculty, deans, and administrators were likely to experience
road rage, leading to increased stress levels when they finally did arrive
at a meeting. College employees considered the traffic congestion to be
unbearable. Technologies to reduce the amount of driving, such as electronic
mail and teleconferencing, were still too new to have an impact on the
drive time necessary for meetings.
Despite the confusion, the hard work, and the negative emotions surrounding
the matrix, as it got underway most faculty, classified staff, and administrators
admit that they enjoyed getting to know people on other campuses, once
they got over their fear of such. Some felt that strides were made toward
college-wide consistency and quality. Even though they had initially resented
being forced to coordinate, many employees grew to believe that this coordination
had been good for them. It allowed them an opportunity to grow and to
understand better the nuances of each campus. It had also been challenging,
but rewarding, to work through contentious relationships with their counterparts
on other campuses. With this increased understanding of college-wide needs,
many administrators also grew to appreciate the opportunity for strategic
budgeting. They began to see that perhaps they could move closer to college-wide
quality and cost-effectiveness. Employees began to enjoy these challenges.
Others, however, continued to think of the matrix as a waste of time,
money, and energy, believing that it could never fully overcome the entrenched
competition among campuses. The Langston campus, specifically, continued
to blame the Waterford campus for everything that was wrong with the matrix
and for perceived resource inequities. People liked having their own campus
and their own leaders; their attachments to both were hard to break. In
addition, some people still found it difficult to conceptualize "the
whole college." Most people lived in the communities surrounding
"their" campus--increasing campus loyalty. Everyone at TCC agrees
that under the matrix structure, thinking college-wide remained in its
second place to campus concerns.
External Pressures - Back
to Top
The Blue Ribbon Task
Force
By definition, a community college shall intimately know and be active
in its community and must respond quickly to changing needs and conditions
in the community. Faculty and staff must be focused on the immediate community.
1
Moving to the matrix structure had invoked the ire of many community
members in the Langston campus service district. Their reaction to the
matrix was to argue more loudly for their own, autonomous campus. Many
community leaders believed that the Langston campus had reached sufficient
size and maturity to warrant an autonomous, free standing, institution.
Garrison had to do something to respond to the pressure he was feeling
from these community members. A state board member was also starting to
tune in to this local issue. He contacted Garrison and, together, they
created a Blue Ribbon Task Force to further investigate the situation
in Fullerton.
The Blue Ribbon Task Force commenced its duties in November 1996. The
duties of this task force were to assess education and training needs
in Langston County and to review the role and mission of; evaluate the
effectiveness of; map future directions for; and make recommendations
on strategies, delivery systems, and organizational structures of the
Langston campus. The 11 members on this task force included the mayor
of Fullerton, a bank president, a foundation president, a representative
from the local chamber of commerce, a representative from a local university,
a local business owner, and three representatives of each of the three
local school districts.
Over a period of eight months the Task Force debated the future of the
Langston campus. Much of their research relied on focus groups comprised
of business, industry, and other community constituents. Focus groups
were also conducted with employees at the Langston campus. Many of the
classified staff did not understand who this group was or what they were
trying to accomplish. Nonetheless, most of the Langston employees complained
about their lack of resources and concomitant lack of autonomy. During
this process, people at Langston openly blamed specific individuals at
Waterford for their problems. The Task Force did not white wash their
report. Word quickly spread that people at Langston did not like specific
people at Waterford. These named and blamed individuals at Waterford became
hurt and angry. Many of them directed this anger toward Edward Remington.
These tensions acted as a further setback to the move toward a matrix-based,
high performance organization.
It was obvious to the Task Force members that morale was deteriorating
on the Langston campus. Nonetheless, they concluded that the college had
been "effective in serving County citizens in both secondary and
post-secondary programs." Task Force members were impressed that
despite low morale, Langston staff had continued to serve students and
community members fairly well.
However, they concluded that it was time to abandon the matrix. There
was total Task Force agreement that the matrix approach "is not effective
now and is not in the best long term interests of Langston County."
They found the matrix to be cumbersome, not well understood, difficult,
and time consuming. Perhaps the worst sin of all was that the matrix did
not provide enough empowerment to the individual campuses. Task Force
members repeated the mantra that Langston was not like the nearby cities.
From their focus group research, they concluded that no one had adequate
time to promote, market, and listen to the business, industry, and educational
leaders in the county and to adopt and customize services to the communities
in the county. Not only was the budget process perceived by the Task Force
as unfair, but they also blamed the matrix management orientation for
moving college responsiveness and decisions for the county too far from
its customer base. Task Force members argued for the CEO of Langston to
be provided with greater budgetary and decision-making authority.
The Task Force came up with two final recommendations. They suggested
either more autonomy within the Transformation Community College "system"
or turning the Langston campus into an autonomous college. The former
option would mean abandoning the matrix. The Task Force presented these
two recommendations without favoring either of them (Appendix B1 contains
the complete executive summary).
Self-Study for the Regional Accrediting Association
of Colleges and Schools
In 1996, TCC staff began to prepare for their 1998 self-study visit from
the regional accrediting association. One of the earliest tasks of the
self-study committee was to survey TCC employees. The results of these
surveys made it clear that there was an unsettled environment at TCC.
Many employees reported feeling isolated and powerless. They complained
of the ongoing "us vs. them" mentality among campuses. In terms
of the matrix structure, "in various self-study activities, employees
from all constituent groups expressed skepticism about the…reorganization,
believing it had caused communication, integrity, and effectiveness problems."
Employees complained that approval processes were cumbersome and often
delayed, and that management layers required extra communication to resolve
routine issues. Supervisors were farther removed and harder to reach and
employees were uncertain about how best to communicate with whom, in various
situations. Garrison was apprised of these findings and did not want to
present a picture of skepticism and confusion to the accreditation self-study
team during their 1998 visit.
The Matrix Is Amended - Back
to Top
By mid 1997, Garrison realized that the general consensus was that the
matrix was not working. He even admitted to himself that the matrix had
led to problems in community responsiveness. After discussions with his
cabinet, Garrison distributed a memo on October 21, 1997, detailing the
scaling back of the matrix. Although there had been high hopes for the
success of the matrix, even most cabinet members were relieved when it
was amended.
One of the main features of this amending was a change in the budgeting
process. The college would request money from the state based on campus
enrollment projections. When the state delivered the budget, money for
college-wide initiatives would be subtracted and a simple enrollment-based
formula, created by a faculty committee, would be used to distribute the
remaining money to the campuses. Any mid-year enrollment growths or reductions
would be borne by the campus that incurred the change in enrollment.
The structure that emerged post-matrix was described as both "semi-functional"
and "classical" (Appendix B3 presents the 1999 organizational
chart). The Langston, Waterford, and North Barrymore/Longview campuses
were each given their own campus vice president who had no college-wide
responsibilities, other than sitting on the President's cabinet and attending
state-wide meetings. Deans reported to their campus VP and went back to
managing both the logistical and instructional needs for only their campus.
Department chairs reverted to reporting to one dean.
Several positions and responsibilities remained college-wide ones. The
Vice President for Finance's office remained a college-wide function,
as did Human Resources, Facilities Management, Accounting, Information
Technology, Institutional Research, Workforce Development, the College
Foundation, and Financial Aid. Several college-wide committees were created,
including ones for professional development and strategic planning. Policy
development continued as a college-wide function, with the acknowledgement
that the practices in implementing these policies could vary by campus.
To encourage consistency in practices, the college-wide professional development
committee decided to create case studies to be used in training sessions
with the goal of creating consistent college-wide responses to various
issues. Instructional, student services, and administrative deans and
directors were to meet two to three times each month in respective group
councils for the promotion of collaboration and cooperation in key areas.
Faculty members continue to work with part-time faculty at other campuses,
and all faculty members meet together once or twice a year at the college's
in-service programs.
The scaling back of the matrix was not heralded by dazzling announcements.
Neither was there any difficulty for employees to make the change. According
to most of them, things got "back to normal" in no time. Garrison,
however, was disappointed. Some shared his belief that there had not been
enough time for the matrix to prove itself. Many others, even as they
were relieved by the scaling back, were sad to have to also scale back
on the time they spent working with their counterparts on other campuses.
There was a feeling across the college that people had just begun to understand
the matrix, how to work under it, and the benefits it could bring to the
college. Those who felt sadness or regret blamed the demise of the matrix
on the Langston campus and believed that the new structure had been sacrificed
as a compromise to Langston in exchange for hope for autonomy. The "us
vs. them" college-wide mentality continued. The sense of the whole
college, developed by some, was not realized by most.
Continuing Issues - Back to
Top
At Waterford
The Waterford campus is suffering under the new budgeting process. Enrollment
is growing slower here than on the other campuses (see Appendix B2) while
the aging buildings, people, and programs are more expensive than they
are on the other campuses. Most new money that comes into the college
each year goes to Langston, Longview, and North Barrymore. Waterford constituents
are concerned about funding for their programs and are frustrated by a
campus budget process they perceive as being closed and secretive.
At Langston
When Garrison decided to scale back on the matrix structure, rather
than allow the Langston campus to become autonomous, Edward Remington
chose to leave. Garrison was very careful in choosing a successor, extensively
screening candidates for the new Langston Campus Vice President position.
Although the new VP they eventually hired had previously served as a department
chair and a vice president of academic affairs, his most recent duties
had been as a faculty member.
The feeling of "family" has returned to the Langston campus.
While the drive to become autonomous is still alive, it is much less powerful.
Having their own budget has placated most Langston campus staff. The campus
is rich, due to its increasing enrollments and lean staffing. However,
some Langston constituents still argue that becoming independent would
be better for their campus and for the college as a whole. Although day-to-day
work has reverted to its campus focus, there are still activities, such
as coordinating policy formation college-wide, that are exhausting. In
addition, there are still decisions that Langston staff must get input
on from other campus leaders. This red tape slows down decision processes.
Deans, faculty and classified staff at Langston are waiting to see whether
their new VP will decide to push for autonomy. There are still several
community members pulling for this push.
At Longview/North Barrymore
The Longview and North Barrymore campuses are also rich in resources.
Enrollments are growing and staffing costs are still fairly low. With
the new money coming into these campuses, they have been able to hire
both new faculty and new staff for advising, counseling, tutoring, registering,
job placement, computer lab support, and financial aid. At Longview, one
computer lab has grown to five computer labs and their size has gone from
15,000 to 30,000 square feet. The communities surrounding these two campuses
continue to grow. Land has been set aside for a new campus in Barrymore
and a TCC center is planned at the local university.
These campuses also exude a "family" feeling; employees brag
about their "great culture." Money is prevalent and the budgeting
process is participatory. When Longview employees finally were able to
decide how to spend their own money, faculty agreed that money needed
first to be spent on improving the campus' student services. Infighting
for funds is relatively rare on these campuses.
College-Wide
A sense of the college as a whole is still fuzzy and ill-defined. College
employees and community members feel a natural affiliation for their own
campus. When the TCC foundation holds fund-raisers, community members
insist that the money they give go to the campus in their community.
Fundraising is extremely important as, without the matrix structure,
the college no longer benefits from extensive economies of scale. "Duplicative"
staff have had to be hired on each campus. Strategic budgeting is also
non-existent. Even if there are obvious inequities between, for example,
resources at Langston and resources at Waterford, there is no mechanism
to resolve these inequities. Langston and Barrymore campus constituents
believe that they should, rightfully, receive funding based on their enrollment
numbers. These constituents do not understand how a lack of resources
at Waterford could possibly hurt them.
Externally mandated activities are putting stress on the campus-oriented
structure at TCC. Both the state and the regional accrediting association
have expectations for student assessment. Who has the authority at TCC
to ensure that the entire college is engaged in assessing students? When
college-wide initiatives like student assessment are tackled, it takes
time and energy to figure out what percentage each campus will pay toward
the initiative. Even without external mandates, consistent policies and
practices would be important. If a student appeals a decision on one campus
and loses, while another student appeals a similar case on another campus
and wins, the college could easily face a lawsuit.
After nine years as President, Garrison has had to admit that, even
with all the organizational changes, TCC is still facing some of the problems
it faced in 1991. One of these problems is not knowing when and how deeply
to become entrenched in new programmatic areas. As high-technology firms
continue to move into TCC's service area, the college becomes tempted
to offer new programs in such areas as photonics. How much money should
they put into developing a program whose technological requirements could
change from week to week? How can the college partner with local industry
to help them with their training needs? Questions like these are not unique
to TCC, but are still important as Garrison continues his quest for the
high performance community college.
Future Directions - Back to
Top
We recognize the resiliency of the faculty and
staff in the face of the transformational changes occurring during the
last five years. 2
As TCC turns 32 years old and retirement parties are thrown every week,
peoples' thoughts naturally turn to their own legacies. Garrison, reflecting
on his tenure at TCC and thinking about the college's future, wants to
ensure that he leads the college to a place of prominence and that, when
he does leave, the college will be running smoothly. While in the past
nine years college staff have strengthened their programs, hired energetic
new faculty, and improved workforce development, there are more decisions
to make and more actions to take.
Garrison now commands the largest community college in the state. Would
he rather be remembered for launching a new Langston College? Would such
a launching benefit TCC? It would certainly lead to more statewide competition
for community college funding. Should he instead give the matrix another
try? After all, he has some new staff to work with and email and teleconferencing
are much more prevalent communication tools. But would he run into the
same issues regarding community responsiveness? How much more change can
TCC constituents accept? Garrison and his staff often revisit these questions
in their continuing quest for a high performance community college.
Back to Top
1 Report and Recommendations
of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on the Future of Transformation Community
College - Langston County Campus, June 1997.
2. Report of a Visit to
Transformation Community College, April 13-15, 1998, for the Commission
on Institutions of Higher Education of the Regional Accrediting Association
of Colleges and Schools
Back to Top
Reference Links:
Managing Change
and Transformation in Higher Education...Institutions...M.
W. Peterson...CSHPE...School
of Education
Higher Education Transformation Work Group
Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education
2117 School of Education
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1259
|