Content uploaded by Rana Zeine
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rana Zeine on Feb 25, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Change Management
An International Journal
ONTHEORGANIZATION.COM
VOLUME 13 ISSUE 4
__________________________________________________________________________
External Adaptability of Higher Education
Institutions
The Use of Diagnostic Interventions to Improve Agility
RANA ZEINE, CHERYL A. BOGLARSKY, PATRICK BLESSINGER, AND LUKAS MICHEL
CHANGE MANAGEMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
www.onth eorganization.com
First published in 2014 in Champaign, Illinois, USA
by Common Ground Publishing LLC
www.commongroundpublishin g.com
ISSN: 2327-798X
© 2014 (individual papers), the author(s)
© 2014 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground
All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes
of study, researc h, criticism or review as permitted under the
applicable copyri ght legislation, no part of this work may be
reproduced by any proc ess without written per mission from the
publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact
cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com.
Change Man agement: An Intern ational Journal is
peer-reviewed, supp orted by rig orous processe s of criterion-
referenced article r anking and qualitative c ommentary,
ensuring that o nly intellectual work of t he greatest substance
and high est signific ance is publ ished.
Change Management: An International Journal
Volume 13, 2014, www.ontheorganization.com, ISSN: 2327-798X
© Common Ground, Rana Zeine, Cheryl A. Boglarsky, Patrick Blessinger, Lukas Michel,
All Rights Reserved. Permissions: cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com
External Adaptability of Higher Education
Institutions: The Use of Diagnostic Interventions
to Improve Agility
Rana Zeine, Saint James School of Medicine, USA
Cheryl A. Boglarsky, Human Synergistics International, USA
Patrick Blessinger, International Higher Education Teaching and Learning Association, USA
Lukas Michel, Sphere Advisors, Switzerland
Abstract: External Adaptability is an outcomes measure of organizational effectiveness reflecting proficiency levels in
responding to external change. Many higher education institutions are interested in reshaping their goals to better meet
the needs of a growing global market. To analyze External Adaptability, 52 higher education faculty and administrators
from institutions in more than 16 countries were surveyed using the Human Synergistics International Organizational
Effectiveness Inventory® (OEI®) Survey. Results revealed that External Adaptability scores fell below both the Historical
Average (50th percentile) and the Constructive Benchmark. Subgroup analysis revealed that scores were below the
Historical Average for faculty, administrators, males, females, and private- and public not-for-profits. By contrast, scores
approached the Historical Average (50th percentile) in private for-profits, and exceeded the Constructive Benchmark in
public for-profits. Trends for slightly higher scores were noted for administrators and males as compared to faculty and
females respectively. To improve agility in higher education institutions, further diagnostic analysis of organizational
decision making is warranted. The Performance Triangle diagnostic model is discussed and the use of the Agilityinsights
Diagnostic™ Survey from Sphere Advisors AG is recommended. Attaining high External Adaptability is critical for the
future of higher education.
Keywords: Organizational Culture, Organizational Effectiveness, Agility, Adaptability, Performance Triangle, Higher
Education, Not-for-profit, For-profit, Management, Leadership
Introduction
Importance of Organizational Adaptability
rivers of permanent volatility include macro-economic fluctuations, technological
innovations, broadening competition, increasing connectivity, changing business
structures and evolving regulations (Dool, 2010). Prosperity in a turbulent environment
depends on the ability to continuously evaluate market conditions, create openness to change,
build and apply knowledge to critical priorities, reexamine and revise organizational strategies,
and deploy and redeploy resources, improve contingency planning and engage in risk assessment
for building organizational resilience (McCann, Selsky, & Lee, 2009) . To compete and attain
sustainability in a rapidly changing and globally dynamic environment, organizations must be
agile. Agility provides the ability to respond quickly and effectively to external signs of change
through operational flexibility. In addition to regular scanning of the external environment,
adaptability requires strategic optimization of internal organizational effectiveness (Szumal,
2001). With decentralization and structural complexity, stakes on all decisions are high, and
leaders increasingly rely on people from all levels of their organization for guidance and input on
a wide range of issues. Hence, the external adaptability of an organization is strengthened by
tapping into the full potential of its people, with the aim of assuring good decision making across
all levels (Michel, 2007). Efforts to cope with the challenges of uncertainty and unpredictability
should neither be random nor left to chance, but rather should be supported by rigorous planning
intended to encourage communication, collaboration, confidence, cohesion, knowledge
D
CHANGE MANAGEMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
management and organizational learning which impact performance (Dool, 2010; Nold III,
2012).
Creating Readiness for Change
We and others have previously demonstrated high levels of passive/defensive and
aggressive/defensive cultural styles, and low levels of constructive styles, as compared to ideal,
in higher education institutions (Sanfilippo, Bendapudi, Rucci, & Schlesinger, 2008; Zeine,
Boglarsky, Blessinger, & Hamlet, 2011). Resistance to change is generally high in organizations
with rigid leadership hierarchies, poorly aligned structures and systems, and heavily defensive
cultural profiles (Erwin & Garman, 2010). Yet, gaining a competitive advantage depends on the
willingness of organizations to continuously scan the external environment, readily evaluate new
ideas, skillfully deliver change messages and effectively implement strategic change initiatives
(Armenakis & Harris, 2009; Blanchard, 2012; Morrison & Keller, 1992-1993). To create
readiness for change, organizations need to support their members by providing an environment
where people focus on purposeful, value adding, tasks, and share what they know to unlock
creativity and accelerate growth (Jaffe & Scott, 2010; Leppitt, 2006; Nold III, 2011). Two higher
education institutions that have recently conducted notable organization wide transformations are
Lincoln University in New Zealand and Ohio State University Medical Center in the United
States (Morrison, Sargison, & Francis, 1997; Sanfilippo et al., 2008). After scanning the external
environmental and diagnosing organizational culture and outcomes, leadership teams launched
change initiatives that included efforts to add new courses/services, develop new programs,
introduce constructive cultural styles, redefine supervisory/managerial leadership interactions,
improve decision making processes and embrace technological advancements, ultimately
increasing student/client satisfaction, employee job satisfaction and financial performance
(Morrison et al., 1997; Sanfilippo et al., 2008).
Agility as a Measure of Effectiveness
The cognitive and emotional stresses associated with serial change can lead to organizational
fatigue referred to as enervative change (Dool, 2010). The challenge, therefore, is for leaders to
envision an institutional framework in which decision making at the level of individuals is
harmonized with decision making at scale, allowing for integration of rapid adaptive adjustments
(Michel, 2007). Agility is the “capacity to be consistently adaptable without having to change”,
and reflects the efficiency with which an organization responds to new situations without
requiring changes in overall approach (Haneberg, 2011, pp. 51,52). Agile systems are believed to
be stable and reliable (Hugos, 2006). In evaluating organizational effectiveness, one of the
outcomes measures that can be assessed is agility, or External Adaptability, which refers to the
extent to which an organization recognizes and responds to changes in its external environment
(Cooke & Szumal, 2000; Szumal, 2001). In this study, we evaluate the External Adaptability
needs of for-profit and not-for-profit higher education institutions using the Human Synergistics
International Organizational Effectiveness Inventory® survey (OEI®) (Szumal, 2001), and we
discuss the findings in light of the Sphere Advisors AG Performance Triangle and AgilityINsights
Diagnostic™ model for improving organizational agility (Michel, 2012).
Methods
Higher Education faculty and administrators from institutions located in 16 countries in North
America, Europe, India, Australia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East participated in the
Human Synergistics (http://www.humansynergistics.com/) Organizational Effectiveness
Inventory survey (OEI®, web-based version). The OEI® assesses multiple factors relevant to
articulation of mission, focus, operational systems, structures and skills; and multiple outcomes
2
ZEINE ET AL.: EXTERNAL ADAPTABILITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
measures relevant to individual, departmental and organizational performance including External
Adaptability (Cooke & Szumal, 2000; Szumal, 2001). Selected data from this study including
demographics and results on External Adaptability are presented and analyzed in this paper. The
mean scores and standard errors were calculated and plotted for total respondents (n=52) and for
8 subgroups: female (n=25), male (n=26), faculty (n=25), administrators (n=20), for-profit-public
(n=4), for-profit-private (n=10), not-for-profit-public (n=30) and not-for-profit-private (n=8)
(Figure 1). OEI® results were compared to the Historical Average (50th percentile) taken as the
median of OEI® responses of members from 1084 organizational units, and to Constructive
Benchmarks, based on the median of OEI® results derived from 172 organizational units with
predominantly Constructive cultures. With the Constructive Benchmark exceeding the Historical
Average, External Adaptability scores falling below the Historical Average were considered
undesirable.
Results
Demographics of Respondents
The 52 respondents were affiliated with Higher Education Institutions in the United States (23),
India (4), United Kingdom (3), France (2), Australia (2), Canada, Wales, Spain, Denmark,
Greece, Macedonia, New Zealand, Ethiopia, Egypt, Jordan, Costa Rica and other countries. The
institutions included Doctorate-granting universities (56%), Master’s colleges / universities
(19%), Bachelor’s colleges (13%), Associate’s colleges (6%), Special Focus (2%) and other
institutions (4%). Four types of institutions were represented, 30 public not-for-profits, 10 private
for-profits, 8 private not-for-profits and 4 public for-profits.
Participants included 26 males and 25 females. More than 21% belonged to the ≥60 years
age group, 56% were in the 40-59 years age bracket, and 17% were less than 39 years old. Their
professional roles in higher education included faculty/professor (48%), director (19%), associate
dean (6%), department chair (4%), dean (4%), provost/dean academic affairs (4%), president
(2%) and undetermined (13%). The majority had spent more than 4 years at their organization as
shown in the distribution chart in Figure 1.
3
CHANGE MANAGEMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
Figure 1. Percentage distribution of number of years spent by respondents at their present higher education institution.
External Adaptability of Higher Education Institutions is Undesirable
Scores for External Adaptability were below both the Historical Average (50th percentile, 3.50)
and the Constructive Benchmark (3.83) for total respondents (mean 3.27 ± 0.15 SE) as shown in
Figure 2. Subgroup analysis revealed scores below the Historical Average for faculty,
administrators, males, females, and private- and public not-for-profits (Figure 2). By contrast,
scores for private for-profits (3.47 ± 0.39) approached the Historical Average, and those for
public for-profit (4.42 ± 0.58) were markedly above the Constructive Benchmark (Figure 2).
Although differences between subgroups did not reach statistical significance, trends for lower
scores were noted for females (3.19 ± 0.22), faculty (3.17 ± 0.22) and not-for-profits (private
3.04 ± 0.41, public 3.11 ± 0.16), as compared to males (3.36 ± 0.21), administrators (3.40 ± 0.25)
and for-profits respectively (Figure 2).
< 6 mo, 4% 6 mo to 1 yr,
6%
1 to 2 yrs,
6%
2 to 4 yrs,
19%
4 to 6 yrs,
23%
6 to 10 yrs,
19%
10 to 15 yrs,
6%
>15 yrs,
15%
nd, 2%
Figure 1
4
ZEINE ET AL.: EXTERNAL ADAPTABILITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
Figure 2. External Adaptability of Higher Education Institutions. OEI® Mean score ± standard error (SE) for total
respondents, and for female, male, faculty, administrator, public for-profit, private for-profit, public not-for-profit and
private not-for-profit subgroups compared to the Historical Average and the Constructive Benchmark.
Discussion
In this study, we probed higher education professionals regarding the extent to which their
institutions proactively identify and adjust to change, effectively respond to external
opportunities and threats, and rapidly implement new programs. Our results showed that the
External Adaptability of higher education institutions is less than optimal. This is consistent with
our findings that the operating culture and other causal factors, including certain systems,
structures and skills, were also less positive than corresponding benchmarks (Human-
Synergistics, 2012; Zeine et al., 2011; R. Zeine et al., 2014; Rana Zeine et al., 2014). To improve
measures of external adaptability, a deeper understanding of the determinants of agility, at all
levels of an organization, is needed.
Determinants of Organizational Agility
In a nine-year longitudinal study of organizations, Collins and Hansen analyzed leadership
characteristics in firms that excel despite uncertainty, chaos, and luck (Collins & Hansen, 2011).
They demonstrated that, contrary to popular belief, the best leaders were not more risk seeking
than others, and that these firms were neither more innovative nor faster in their decision-making
than others (Collins, 2012; Collins & Hansen, 2011). They approached uncertainty, turmoil and
disruptive change with “a mix of creativity, discipline and paranoia” which enabled them to
“recognize changes and threats early, then make rigorous decisions and take disciplined action”
(Collins, 2012, p. 4). Rather than reacting instantaneously to episodes of chaos, they watched
events unfold and made deliberate preparations, scaled innovation throughout their organizations,
and changed less in reaction to their evolving world as compared to others (Collins & Hansen,
2011).
0 1 2 3 4 5
Female
Male
Faculty
Administrators
For-profit, Public
For-profit, Private
Not-for-profit, Public
Not-for-profit, Private
Total
Historical Average
Median, 50th
percentile
Constructive
n = 52
n = 30
n = 10
n = 4
n = 20
n = 25
n = 25
n = 26
n = 8
Mean Score ±
SE
5
CHANGE MANAGEMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
The need for fast and effective decision-making, effective knowledge management, and
innovation are recurring themes throughout the literature on corporate agility, adaptability, and
change. Five issues that have been identified as “paramount” for success in “a world of relentless
change, ferocious competition, and unstoppable innovation” are values, innovation, adaptability,
passion and ideology; whereby, innovation is at the core of an agile organization (Hamel, 2012a,
p. 4; 2012b). Strategic flexibility is key, especially in the reconfiguration of multinational
corporations, whereby, the decision-making processes determine the level of attainable agility
and mold the ‘flexible footprints’ of each adapting organization (Maitland & Sammartino, 2012).
Nature of Higher Education Institutions
In an analysis of business continuity plans of 20 U.S. universities, arrangement in three domains
were found to be important when facing disruptive change: (1) effective configuration of
information technology systems including the establishment of communication protocols, (2)
adequate faculty readiness, and (3) adequate student readiness (Ekmekci & Bergstrand, 2010).
Institutions with the ability to “remain agile throughout the duration of a given change initiative”
maintain a high capacity to adjust both “the speed and the direction of change efforts” (Ekmekci
& Bergstrand, 2010, p. 26). Institutions with deficiencies in adjusting speed make “frequent
changes in direction” resulting in a “volatile trajectory”, while those with deficiencies in
adjusting direction often miss their targets by “following a projectile trajectory”, and institutions
that “can neither alter speed nor direction” become “docile” and unable to compete (Ekmekci &
Bergstrand, 2010, pp. 26-27). Efforts to improve External Adaptability may be hampered by the
“institutional resistance” that characterizes higher education institutions (Macfadyen & Dawson,
2012; Tagg, 2012). Yet, our results indicate that there is awareness among faculty and
administrators, males and females, that their institutions are not optimally adaptive, which could
be interpreted as a sign of readiness to explore new ideas (Figure 2). Achieving higher agility
requires the adoption of leadership styles and managerial systems that optimize the integration of
good decision-making by the people who have the specific knowledge and expertise relevant to
any particular issue or circumstance.
The Performance Triangle
The Performance Triangle is a conceptual model of agility composed of three primary elements:
Systems, Leadership, and Culture (Michel, 2013). Because decisions are made by people, the
Performance Triangle places People at the center of the model (Figure 3).
6
ZEINE ET AL.: EXTERNAL ADAPTABILITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
Figure 3. Performance Triangle. Adapted from “The Performance Triangle: A diagnostic tool to help leaders translate
knowledge into action for higher agility” p.8. By Michel, 2013. Copyright 2013 by AgilityINsights Diagnostic™.
The Performance Triangle frames the requirements for higher agility and speed as measures
of organizational success. People power the system by contributing their unique skills, expertise,
and experience. Determinants of superior decision making include (a) the awareness to sense
early warning signs of changes in the internal or external environment, (b) the skill to identify
and distill relevant information, and (c) the readiness to react quickly in order to have an impact
on outcomes. For an organization to harness the energy and capacity of its people, it must find
ways to ensure that all members are given the opportunity to work to their fullest potential. Agile
organizations aim to facilitate self-determination, self-control, self-initiative, and responsibility
rather than applying rigid, inflexible, and slow-reacting command-and-control mechanisms of
governance. Collective success is made possible through communication, collaboration and
relationship building within and throughout the organization. The Performance Triangle
illustrates an organizational design and philosophy that connect the knowledge and talents of the
people who are needed to make effective and timely decisions within an organization (Figure 3).
It has been proposed that coaching can empower individuals to perform at their highest
potential by winning at their “inner game” and overcoming their self-doubt, fear, biased-focus,
limiting concepts or assumptions that distort perceptions, decisions, behaviors, actions and stress
that interfere with, and diminish, performance (Gallwey, 2000; Whitmore & Gallwey, 2010).
Indeed, there is an infinite array of personal and organizational conditions that can degrade
communication and, ultimately, interfere with the decision-making process. Awareness, choice,
and trust help people to focus their attention on what matters. Desired focus is attainable in
environments where individuals, and the collective, develop sharpened awareness and keen
abilities that allow them to compensate for distractions and noise (Gallwey, 2000). Reaching a
state of flow, the state where performance and creativity are at a peak, must be a primary
objective at all levels of an agile organization (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). Control systems are
needed to manage both evolutionary and revolutionary change by formalizing beliefs, setting
boundaries on acceptable strategic behavior, defining and monitoring performance variables,
encouraging debate and discussion about uncertainties, communicating new strategies,
Figure 3
7
CHANGE MANAGEMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
establishing targets, and securing attention to new strategic initiatives (Simons, 1994). In facing
the unknown, effective responses necessarily require novel, creative and untried ideas. An
organization’s ability to respond becomes a function of the ingenuity of its people, the ability of
the organization to harness that ingenuity, and the available resources. In support of this, leaders
need to design frameworks for interaction, and systems with rules, routines and tools that enable
people to relate, collaborate, and focus on a common purpose (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Organizational Relationships to Achieve Flow and Enable The Inner Game. Adapted from “The Performance
Triangle: A diagnostic tool to help leaders translate knowledge into action for higher agility” p.16. By Michel, 2013.
Copyright 2013 by AgilityINsights Diagnostic™.
At the top of the Performance Triangle is Success, representing the ultimate purpose of
management (Figure 3). Organizational Culture creates shared context, enables or inhibits
knowledge transfer, and defines the boundaries of collaboration (Bolman & Deal, 1991; Ruggles,
1998). The organizational culture, leadership styles, structures, and reward systems provide a
social context for knowledge creation which either enables or constrains relationships and
interactions (Nonaka & von Krogh, 2009). Indeed, organizational culture can constitute a bottle-
neck that limits knowledge sharing, creativity, and success. In the broadest sense, leadership is
embodied by effective communication and interaction with others at all levels throughout the
organization. In the Performance Triangle, systems represent the institutional framework with
rules, routines, and tools that set the stage for rigorous and disciplined leadership (Figure 3).
Through time, operating cultures unintentionally deviate from ideal cultures in many
organization including higher education institutions (Sanfilippo et al., 2008; Zeine et al., 2011).
When this happens, senses are likely to be numb, mistrust prevails, and tight rules prevent people
from capturing opportunities. As such, people face an adverse “outer game” – external challenges
beyond their abilities. Challenged by both, the inner and outer games, performance is
compromised and people are unable to work at their full potential (Gallwey, 2000; Somers,
2009).
Recommendations
Need for Investigating Agility in Higher Education Institutions
We recommend that Higher Education institutions undergo diagnostic evaluations and in-depth-
analysis of their current organizational agility. This could be accomplished either as part of a
general needs assessment for organizational culture or organizational effectiveness, or as a
separate study that is purely focused on determinants of organizational agility. Insight gained
could establish a starting point for constructive dialogue, and could guide future strategic
planning. The AgilityINsights Diagnostic™ is a comprehensive assessment tool that analyzes an
organization’s capability to adapt in an ever-changing external environment
(http://www.agilityinsights.com/). It generates scores for an array of managerial and leadership
parameters and has been developed over a 15-year period. High scores suggest desirable levels of
Figure 4
8
ZEINE ET AL.: EXTERNAL ADAPTABILITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
productive conversations with employees on direction, performance, beliefs, and boundaries.
Interpretation of results is based on data collected from 50 organizations demonstrating the
existence of meaningful and statistically significant relationships between culture, leadership,
systems, and success (Table 1, p-values < 0.05).
Table 1: Relationships between Organizational Culture, Leadership, Systems and Success
identified by the Agilityinsights Diagnostic™ Performance Triangle model.
Relationships, n = 50
α, intersection
β, slope
Correlation coefficient
Leadership – culture
26
0.61
0.55
Systems – culture
24
0.66
0.56
Systems – leadership
20
0.73
0.69
Culture – success
45
0.42
0.52
The strongest positive correlation identified is between systems and leadership (r=0.69). The
1:1 relationship between culture and systems indicates that organizations with superior systems
are likely to have a productive culture. Every system is a bureaucratic intervention. Systems are
necessary to support effective management and leadership and to help establish and maintain a
healthy culture. Small changes in systems have a significant effect on leadership, and there is no
leadership without systems (low intersection point). The challenge for any organization is to
create a positive environment that encourages people to work together to share what they know
and collaborate effectively. A productive culture increases the probability of success. Nold
(2012) showed that firms with higher levels of credibility, fairness, respect (collectively trust),
pride, and camaraderie significantly outperformed comparable firms in the same industries in
value creation, operational performance, and growth rate.
Conclusion
Higher education institutions can explore strategies to increase the speed and quality of decision-
making with a view to improving their External Adaptability. Agility is an essential capability
when coping with volatility and uncertainty. The Performance Triangle is a diagnostic model
and philosophy that combines culture, leadership, and systems to maximize flow and
performance in ways that would enhance organizational agility. The starting point for
implementing the Performance Triangle concepts is to diagnose the current operational state in
order to identify gaps between what executives think is going on and what is actually happening.
This process requires deep introspective and meaningful dialogue to understand the patterns of
behavior and the attributes that currently exist within an organization. Asking difficult questions
to stimulate critical thinking and honest evaluation becomes a key first step in the process. Real
solutions that are effective, timely, and long-lasting, result from self-mentoring as an outcome of
exploring people-centric aspects of the organization.
9
CHANGE MANAGEMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
REFERENCES
Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2009). Reflections: our Journey in Organizational Change
Research and Practice. Journal of Change Management, 9(2), 127-142. doi:
10.1080/14697010902879079
Blanchard, H. (2012). How Do You Get Leaders to Change? Chief Learning Officer, 11(10), 26-
29.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Leadership and Management Effectiveness: A Multi-
Frame, Multi-Sector Analysis. Human Resource Management (1986-1998), 30(4), 509-
535.
Collins, J. (2012). Great By Choice. Leadership Excellence, 29(7), 3-4.
Collins, J., & Hansen, M. T. (2011). Great By Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos, And Luck-Why Some
Thrive Despite Them All (1st ed.). New York, NY, USA: HarperCollins.
Cooke, R. A., & Szumal, J. L. (2000). Using the Organizational Culture Inventory to understand
the operating cultures of organizations. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom & M.
F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate (pp. 147-162).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow. Psychology Today, 30, 46-48+.
Dool, R. (2010). Lessons From the Military: A New Framework for Managing Change (C5).
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17(3), 253-263. doi:
10.1177/1548051810369678
Ekmekci, O., & Bergstrand, J. (2010). Agility in Higher Education: Planning for Business
Continuity in the Face of an H1N1 Pandemic. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal,
75(4), 20-30,22.
Erwin, D. G., & Garman, A. N. (2010). Resistance to organizational change: linking research and
practice. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(1), 39-56. doi:
10.1108/01437731011010371
Gallwey, T. (2000). The Inner Game of Work: Focus, Learning, Pleasure, and Mobility in the
Workplace. New York, USA: Random House.
Hamel, G. (2012a). What Matters Now. Leadership Excellence, 29(4), 4-4.
Hamel, G. (2012b). What Matters Now: How to Win in ‘A World of Relentless Change,
Ferocious Competition, and Unstoppable Innovation’. USA: Jossey-Bass.
Haneberg, L. (2011). Training for Agility: Building the skills employees need to zig and zag. T +
D, 65(9), 50-56.
Hugos, M. H. (2006). The Future Belongs to The Agile. Computerworld, 40(11), 22-23.
Human-Synergistics. (2012). OEI Report, HETL-Keller OEI Higher Ed Research Project. Raw
Data. Human Synergistics, Inc. USA.
Jaffe, D. T., & Scott, C. D. (2010). Mastering the Change Curve Facilitator Guide Facilitator
Guide - Theoretical Background. 11-26. Retrieved from
http://ebookbrowse.com/mastering-change-curve-theory-pdf-d30503402
Leppitt, N. (2006). Challenging the code of change: Part 2. Crossing the rubicon: Extending the
integration of change. Journal of Change Management, 6(3), 235-256. doi:
10.1080/14697010600683153
Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2012). Numbers Are Not Enough. Why e-Learning Analytics
Failed to Inform an Institutional Strategic Plan. Journal of Educational Technology &
Society, 15(3), 149-163.
Maitland, E., & Sammartino, A. (2012). Flexible Footprints: Reconfiguring MNCs for New
Value Opportunities. California Management Review, 54(2), 92-117. doi:
10.1525/cmr.2012.54.2.92
McCann, J., Selsky, J., & Lee, J. (2009). Building Agility, Resilience and Performance in
Turbulent Environments. People & Strategy, 32(3), 44-51.
10
ZEINE ET AL.: EXTERNAL ADAPTABILITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
Michel, L. (2007). Understanding decision making in organizations to focus its practices where it
matters. Measuring Business Excellence, 11(1), 33-45. doi:
10.1108/13683040710740916
Michel, L. (2013, 6-8 July). The Performance Triangle: A diagnostic tool to help leaders translate
knowledge into action for higher agility. Organizational Cultures: An International
Journal, 12(2): 13-28.
Morrison, J. L., & Keller, G. (1992-1993). The Institutional Vulnerability Audit. Planning for
Higher Education, 21(Winter), 27-34. Retrieved from
http://horizon.unc.edu/courses/papers/AUDIT.html
Morrison, J. L., Sargison, A., & Francis, D. (1997). Using the Futures Program as a Tool for
Transformation: Lincoln University, New Zealand. New Directions for Institutional
Research, 1997(94), 19-30. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ir.9403,
http://horizon.unc.edu/courses/papers/transforming.html doi:10.1002/ir.9403
Nold III, H. (2011). Merging Knowledge Creation Theory with the Six-Sigma Model for
Improving Organizations: The Continuous Loop Model. [Essay]. International Journal
of Management, 28(2), 469-477.
Nold III, H. (2012). Linking knowledge processes with firm performance: organizational culture.
Journal of Intellectual Capital, 13(1), 16-38. doi: 10.1108/14691931211196196
Nonaka, I., & von Krogh, G. (2009). Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy
and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory. Organization
Science, 20(3), 635-652.
Ruggles, R. (1998). The state of the notion: Knowledge management in practice. California
Management Review, 40(3), 80-89.
Sanfilippo, F., Bendapudi, N., Rucci, A., & Schlesinger, L. (2008). Strong leadership and
teamwork drive culture and performance change: Ohio State University Medical Center
2000-2006. Academic Medicine, 83(9), 845-854.
Simons, R. (1994). How New Top Managers Use Control Systems as Levers of Strategic
Renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 15(3), 169-189.
Somers, M. (2009). The inner game of coaching. Training Journal, 66-69.
Szumal, J. L. (2001). Reliability and Validity of the OEI. Reliability and Validity Report, 1-21.
Retrieved from http://www.human-
synergistics.com.au/Files/ResearchAndPublications/OEIReliabilityReport.pdf
Tagg, J. (2012). Why Does the Faculty Resist Change? Change, 44(1), 6-15. doi:
10.1080/00091383.2012.635987
Whitmore, J., & Gallwey, T. (2010). What is the Inner Game ? John Whitmore and Tim Gallwey
in conversation (Vol. 5, pp. 36-37): Coaching at Work Limited.
Zeine, R., Boglarsky, C., Blessinger, P., & Hamlet, M. (2011). Organizational Culture in Higher
Education. In H. H. Kazeroony (Ed.), The Strategic Management of Higher Education
Institutions: Serving Students as Customers for Institutional Growth (1st ed., pp. 19-38).
New York, NY, USA: Business Expert Press, LLC; Webinar
http://www.slideshare.net/rzeine/webinar-changing-organizational-culture-in-higher-
education.
Zeine, R., Boglarsky, C. A., Daly, E., Blessinger, P., Kurban, M., & Gilkes, A. (2014). Customer
Service Focus and Mission Articulation as measures of Effectiveness in Higher
Education Institutions: Driving Student Success. Management Education: An
International Journal, 2014.
Zeine, R., Palatnick, F., Boglarsky, C. A., Blessinger, P., Herrick, B., & Hamlet, M. T. (2014). A
Considerate Leadership as a measure of Effectiveness in Medical and Higher Education:
Analysis of supervisory/managerial leadership. Organizational Cultures: An
International Journal, 2014.
11
CHANGE MANAGEMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Dr. Rana Zeine: Saint James School of Medicine, USA
Dr. Cheryl A. Boglarsky: Human Synergistics International, USA
Patrick Blessinger: International Higher Education Teaching and Learning Association, USA
Lukas Michel: CEO & Partner, Owner, Founder and MD, Sphere Advisors, Switzerland
12
Change Management: An International Journal
is one of four thematically focused journals in the
collection of journals that support The Organization
knowledge community—its journals, book series,
conference and online community.
The journal investigates the dynamics of negotiating
organizational change, and organizational responses
to social, stakeholder and market change.
As well as papers of a traditional scholarly type, this
journal invites case studies that take the form of
presentations of management practice—including
documentation of organizational practices and
exegeses analyzing the effects of those practices.
Change Management: An International Journal is a
peer-reviewed scholarly journal.
ISSN 2327-798X
