From financial captivity, to freedom: UMKC is reinventing itself as a quantum university. First order of business: culture change - Viewpoint

University Business, July, 2003 by Martha W. Gilliland

It is irrational, at best, to repeat the same behavior but expect a different result. Individuals fall prey to this nonproductive pattern, and so do organizations, including universities.

In 2000, the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) realized that our old behavior no longer worked, We decided that we had to change--not incrementally, as most universities and organizations do, but dramatically--in order to achieve the results we desired.

Not surprisingly, a major impetus for our decision was financial. Since 1989, state support for Missouri public higher education has trended down. In January of 2002, the trend gained momentum with a 10 percent cut in core funding. (To provide context, in 2002 only 11 states invested less per capita in higher education than Missouri.) Still, we do not stand alone: Forty-three states are considered to be in a state of crisis in higher education funding. A report issued by the National Governors Association last November said that states face "the most dire fiscal situation since World War II." And the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said last December that "the budget deficits now looming over state governments will likely reach $60 billion to $85 billion in state fiscal year 2004 and constitute the largest state budget gaps in half a century."

In short, state budgets for higher education are more likely to be cut--significantly--than maintained in the foreseeable future.

That is the "big picture" context for UMKC's decision to dramatically change behavior. But there are other important contributing factors. For example, we know that we must adapt more effectively to society's growing pluralism, to markets that extend beyond traditional age groups and geographic boundaries, to competition from for-profit enterprises, and to technology that, according to one futurist, will by 2020 produce a $1,000 computer with speed and memory roughly equivalent to the human brain.

But we wondered: What kind of change should we undertake? We knew that more incremental change was not the answer. As Davie Breneman wrote in The Chronicle of Higher Education, "The danger ties in the cumulative effect of the incremental changes (of the past), each one seemingly minor but collectively altering the nature of the enterprise." We also knew that real change had to begin with our culture. As James Duderstadt, former president of the University of Michigan, has written, "the real challenge (to higher education) lies in transforming the culture of the institution. Financial or political difficulties can be overcome if the organization can let go of rigid habits of thought, organization, and practices that are incapable of responding rapidly or radically enough."

THE QUANTUM APPROACH TO CULTURE CHANGE

Put simply, the quantum model is the theoretical opposite of an incremental or Cartesian model. Instead of defining success as an incremental improvement, the quantum model holds the possibility of remarkable improvement; a state change. On the other hand, the Cartesian model also is low risk while the quantum model is both risky and messy. We accepted the risk--an the messiness. Here are five elements of the culture change process we have found essential to our success:

Extensive participation. Thousands of people--including several hundred on an intensive basis--joined together to develop UMKCs vision and values. We began with a group of 80. In 15 months of small and large sessions, we expanded participation exponentially.

Leadership development. Some 250 people were most responsible for creating the UMKC dream. We considered them leaders/owners of that vision, and trained them in that role. One example: Culture exists and is transferred in conversations in the institution. To change the culture, you also must change the conversations. So, we trained these leaders to shift conversations from complaining (old culture) to positive action (new culture). Then we armed them with facts to deal with rumors and negativity.

Leadership accountability. If people have official authority, they must be hew accountable to live the values and the vision consistently and continually. If they do not, changes must be made to avoid breakdowns in adoption of the new culture.

Momentum/confidence building. Choose meaningful projects with strong champions and produce early quantum or remarkable results. We called these "breakthrough" projects, and some 700 UMKC people chose 11 they wanted to make reality.

No excuses. Once a large number of people have created a new vision and values, it cannot be ignored. All leaders must live the values and work toward the vision consistently and continually. When I or a member of my leadership team slips, many people notice, because many people are involved and care. So, we have to own up to any error and correct it to maintain the credibility that is essential to keep the change process on track.

DO THESE FIVE KEY FACTORS FOR SUCCESS MEAN MORE WORK?

Of course they do--and at quantum rather than incremental levels. However, in my experience, most university statements of vision and values are developed by a small, high-level group. Even if large numbers of people are involved, that involvement generally represents form more than substance, and short-term rather than continuing participation. Further, few institutions actually measure progress toward meeting their vision and values. And even fewer hold administrators accountable for performance. Given these limitations, institutions cannot realistically expect ownership, involvement--or success. The fact is that success does not automatically follow the creation of a vision or the proclamation of values. Success comes from actually living the vision and values, however difficult that may be.