SSU’s External environmental Analysis
Discuss About The European Journal Of Research On Education.
Super Star University is an Australian institution of higher learning with an outstanding long history of nurturing learning and innovation. Since its inception in 1854, the institution has experienced remarkable growth to become one of the largest universities in Australia. Currently, the institution has 7 faculties, 4 campuses, 27 schools, 35000 students and more than 3600 employees working as full-time basis.
The institution has tried to initiate a change process to streamline its activities for the purpose of coping with the changing environment. The report looks at Super Star University change management, the external environment affecting the change, the efforts by two faculties within the university to implement the change plan and the comparison in their models of implementing change plan. The report also seeks to give a few recommendations on what the university’s management can do to implement the change plan successfully.
With the rapid change in the global environment, most organizations are quickly changing their strategies and forms in order to develop and remain relevant. Change is inevitable for any organization striving to streamline its activities for the purpose of growth and prosperity. Such organizations can be either be private or public institutions of higher learning like Super Star University.
From that information, it is important to note that effective management of the institution is required in order to achieve its set goals and remain competitive in the educational sector. In the recent past, there has been tremendous changes in external environment within which the university operates in. To clearly understand the SSU’s external environment, it is essential to do PESTEL analysis and the features that affect the SSU change processes (Benn, Edwards and William, 2014, pp. 102).
The first component of the external environment affecting changes processes at SSU is the legal aspects. Legal aspects include the government restrictions and laws that govern the organizational operations especially the Employee Protection Act. For instance, in the process of change at the faculty of engineering, architecture and environmental sciences, the faculty executive had planned to slice down the number of schools and research institutes within the faculty. He had also place to eradicate the issue of staff redundancy within the faculty. However, due to the laws and regulations protecting the employees such as the National Employee Standards and University’s 2014 Enterprise Agreement, the company is unable to implement its plan. Through trade union representatives like NTEU and CPSU, the employees have been supported to resist change and seek legal actions.
Comparison in change processes of the two faculties at SSU
Economic state is another feature of the external environment that is affecting a successful change processes within the university. It is imperative to understand that managing change is a very expensive process which requires a lot of funding. One thing that the university’s VC did not take into consideration is the cost implications of change. For instance, in the faculty of arts the working party noted in its report that the schools must prioritize on innovation and research in order to seek funding from the national and international sources. Therefore, the institution seems to have no financial stamina to drive the change process thus relying on donors and government (Geisler and Wickramasinghe, 2015, pp. 65).
Technology is also a component of external factor that is affecting the change processes within Super Star University. With globalization taking over, the era of using technology aided means of operating is taking over. For instance, in the faculty of arts is planning to adopt online classes to facilitate deeper student learning and improved academic performance. However, the process of acquiring and maintaining such systems is also a hindrance (Kaufman, 2017, pp. 25).
Political aspect is another external environment aspect that is limiting the university’s change processes. The political system in a country establishes the laws and regulations that offer employee protection. For example, National Employee Standards protects the employees’ rights and this has become an impediment to the faculty of engineering since it cannot dismiss employees as it had planned in its change management plan (Kerzner and Kerzner, 2017, pp. 210).
The social aspect is the last element of the external environment that is affecting the change processes and SSU. The community around the institution is also a big hindrance. In its plan, the university has established that its activities will be inclined towards the efforts to effect social change in the community. Therefore, the institution is limited to ensuring that its change processes are favoring community and at the same time solving the societal problems.
Change remains a significant element for any organization striving to survive in the marketing and counter the competitive nature of key players within a given economy. Changes in the organizational business brought by environmental changes such as globalization have made change an inevitable element that dictates success in any economic venture. Thus, all the private and public institutions are bound to respect quickly to such changes to streamline their activities with the new environment provisions (Hayes, 2014, pp. 95).
Similarities and Differences in the Change Processes
As mentioned above, any organization whether public or private, reacting to internal or external environment is imperative. Therefore, Super Star University being an institution of learning and innovation, the new Vice-Chancellor and President of SSU Professor Max Blocks has stressed on the need to review the University’s processes and procedures. Such review and changes are aimed at contributing to the institution’s ability to harness its delivery areas of discoveries, learning and engagements (Dawson and Andriopoulos, 2014, pp. 85).
In the effort to introduce, support and impellent the new strategic plan, the VC called for a Strategic Executive Retreat. The convention sought to lay the foundation and prepare direction the new SSU’s strategic plan. After the strategic plan draft was issued to the executives and approved by the University’s council in December 2016, various faculty executives embarked on the process of implementing the plan within their respective dockets. However, from the case study, it is noted that in the effort to share the VC’s visions and improve the institution’s performance, the faculty executives adopted various models which were similar and also different in some aspects. This sections looks at change processes within the two faculties at SSU, that is, the Faculty of Engineering, Architecture and Environmental Sciences as well as the Faculty of Arts.
The Faculty of Arts headed by Professor Lots and the Faculty of Engineering, Architecture and Environmental Sciences headed by Professor Anthony Court tried to initiate change and implement change using models that similar in some ways and differed in other ways.
The two change processes addressed were seeking to push the new Vice-Chancellor’s vision. After the smooth handover of leadership and power from Professor Holmstead to Professor Blocks, the new Professor was keen to make tremendous new changes within the institution. As described from the details of the Strategic Executive Retreat, Professor Block decided to make clear his new vision that would take the University to the top 100 universities in the world. Therefore, the two change process were aimed at addressing the new VC’s strategic plan and vision.
Both change processes within the two faculties involved the formation of work parties to steer the change process. The faculty of Arts formed a four working parties drawing membership from the faculty professors and representatives from the relevant schools and institutes within the faculty. In the Faculty of Engineering and Environmental Sciences, three working parties were established with memberships from eminent professors and other professional faculty staff. Hence the two change processes involved the formation of working parties to steer the change practice (Bratton and Gold, 2017, pp. 112).
The two change processes aimed at addressing the need to improve the performance of various fields where the institution performed below standards. In the year 2015, the university was said to have performed below world standards in two out of the four research codes, that is, the Built Environment and Design discipline (1201) and the Policy Administration discipline (1605). The faculty of Arts embarked on the issue of Policy Administration while the faculty of Engineering and Environmental Sciences dealt with the issue of Built Environment and Discipline. Therefore, the two change process aimed at managing change to address the two issues (Dawson and Andriopoulos, 2014, pp. 86).
Both change processes addressed the need for improving the quality and quantity of academic performance levels. During the launch of his the new strategic plan addressing his vision, Professor Block stressed on the need to improve the SSU’s performance in order to improve the its position in all the three widely- promoted international rankings locally and internationally. Consequently the two faculties addressed to need to change in order to improve the institutions performance.
In their change processes, both faculties sought to strengthen the aspect of transparency and accountability in decision making. In any change management process, the need for being open when making decisions is important. Hence, the two head of faculties maintained the aspect of openness during the transformation process to allow the exchange of views and ideas between the initiators and managers of change.
During the change process, the procedure and mode chosen by the two faculty heads differed in a number of ways. For the purpose of clear and deep understanding, the differences have been analyzed in the table below.
|
Faculty of Arts |
Faculty of Engineering, Architecture and Environmental Sciences |
|
There was inclusivity in the working parties involved in steering the change process. The members of the parties were from the faculty professors to the representatives of all the five schools and institutes. |
There was no inclusivity in the membership of working parties steering the change process. Only eminent faculty professors and invited staff were allowed to participate in driving the change. |
|
The process in the faculty gave room for wide engagements and involvements of employees to give their views. |
The employee involvement and engagement was minimal. |
|
The faculty had four working parties to drive the change process |
The faculty head established only three working parties to steer the process |
|
There was wide consultation between the faculty executive and the working parties to adjust the report findings for a successful change process. |
There was no consultation leading to employee resistance and dissatisfaction. |
|
All the workers were involved in the initial meeting that gave the need for change. All the 300 workers were invited in the meeting. |
The initial meeting to convey the VC’s vision involved only faculty executive members, 7 heads of schools and 3 heads of research institutes. |
|
The change process within the faculty involved effective communication and employer-employee relationship. |
There was no established communication process and poor employer-employee relationship that led to resistance. |
|
The ageing employees were urged to renew their contracts voluntarily to facilitate the recruitment of new employees to replace the ageing. |
During the process, the faculty had decided to reduce the number of schools and institutes and also reduction of staff redundancy by 25%. This meant that some employees will lose their jobs hence lack of job security. |
Change can be basically referred to as the process of altering the way people operate or simply the introduction of new ways and working processes. Although change at SSU is seen as the only way to help the institution remain the leader in the educational sector, most employees view it as a threat that might end up costing them their jobs. Most of them are dissatisfied with the decision to change as they feel that their job security is not assured (Y?lmaz and K?l?ço?lu, 2013, pp. 17)
As a result, most employees end up resisting change (Malik and Masood, 2015, pp. 105). Resistance will block the initiation and implementation of change process at SSU. The resistance the new VC will face include; the high employee turnover since they feel insecure, low motivation and reduced morale among employees, lack of teamwork and low productivity, lack of employees goodwill, employees become less innovative, increased work boycott and strikes as well as lack of streamlined organizational activities due to conflicts (Rahim, 2017, pp. 7).
Therefore, change is a process that should be managed carefully to avoid resistance. The management should do proper assessment and planning though employee engagement and involvement (Hill, Jones and Schilling., 2014, pp. 172). Once the situation is analyzed, effective communication is needed to help the employees understand the need to change and adopt new ways of doing their work. However, the new VC at SSU has failed to effectively manage the change process and is bound to fail due to the resistance discussed above (Hayes, 2014, pp. 90).
As an OD practitioners with over ten years of experience, I would like to put down my resolution concerning the process of change management process at Super Star University. To the concerned parties, the element of proper plan and management of any change process must be done carefully, effectively and efficiently. You should adopt an appropriate change management model to guide a successful change management process. Therefore, as management you should: analyze your organization and understand the needs for change, engage your entire workforce and allow them to give views on the proposed change process, consult widely and put into consideration the employees input and views, clarify any issue of concern, communicate effectively, relate well with your employees, negotiate with your resisting group in the faculty of engineering, architecture and environmental sciences carefully and finally decide on the way to execute your change process based on consensus.
Conclusion
Change remains vital process that help an institution like SSU to develop by adjusting to the modern world. The report analysis the case study of the new SSU’s VC efforts to implement a new strategic plan with a vision of transforming the university to be among the top 100 universities in the world. However, the approach used to initiate change within the organization seems to fail due to lack of proper techniques of managing change leading to resistance. Therefore, the VC and the entire management should consider the recommendations covered in the report to help the organization implement its strategic plan by countering employee resistance.
Effective and efficient change management is significant in managing any change process within an organization. Hence, any poorly managed change process is bound to fail due to employees’ resistance as witnessed in the case of SSU’s new VC. However, there are a few recommendations that the management can follow to effectively manage resistance and convince the employees to embrace change. Effective communication is important in managing change. Employee engagement, involvement and consultation is also a better way of avoiding employee resistance. A good employer-employee relationship is also key in ensuring a successful change management process. Negotiation and rewards can motivate employees to embrace change and be part of it. By adopting these recommendations and techniques, the organization can initiate and implement and successful change process since they make employees part of change process reducing the chances of resistance.
References
Benn, S., Edwards, M. and Williams, T., 2014. Organizational change for corporate sustainability. Routledge, pp. 100-105.
Bratton, J. and Gold, J., 2017. Human resource management: theory and practice. Palgrave, pp. 107-121.
Dawson, P. and Andriopoulos, C., 2014. Managing change, creativity and innovation. Sage, pp.78-94.
Geisler, E. and Wickramasinghe, N., 2015. Principles of knowledge management: Theory, practice, and cases. Routledge, pp.56-72.
Harrison, F. and Lock, D., 2017. Advanced project management: a structured approach. Routledge, pp.89-102.
Hayes, J., 2014. The theory and practice of change management. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 89-98.
Hill, C.W., Jones, G.R. and Schilling, M.A., 2014. Strategic management: theory: an integrated approach. Cengage Learning, pp.167-177.
Kaufman, H., 2017. The limits of organizational change. Routledge, pp. 20-32.
Kerzner, H. and Kerzner, H.R., 2017. Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons, pp.201-214
Malik, S.Z. and Masood, S., 2015. Emotional Intelligence and Resistance to Change: Mediating role of psychology Capital in Telecom Sector of Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Commerce & Social Sciences, 9(2), pp. 102-108.
Rahim, M.A., 2017. Managing conflict in organizations. Routledge, pp. 5-10.
Y?lmaz, D. and K?l?ço?lu, G., 2013. Resistance to change and ways of reducing resistance in educational organizations. European journal of research on education, 1(1), pp.14-21.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
