Responses

Michael discussion:

Hello everyone,

In the reading this week I inferred that the largest issue with hiring an outside firm to help with the initiatives was that they were contracted to begin to help before the stakeholders were assembled.  In this sense, the faculty union believes that the decisions were already made before they arrived, and that the consultant, McKinsey, was there to help them accept the changes (Schmidt, 2014).  The faculty union withdrew their participation in the process because they felt they weren’t allowed adequate input in the process.

My proposed change to the process would be to include all stakeholders from the very beginning.  Perception is key, and having the consultants onboard before the committee was brought together makes the perception seem that they are on the side of the university administration.  This devolves into concern among the faculty that the outcome was pre-decided.  If the faculty were involved in choosing a consultant, and understanding the reasons why a national firm was important to the process, would give them a voice, and a responsibility to support the chosen consultant.

One of the keys to stakeholder engagement is to include all stakeholders from the beginning of the process.  A strategic approach, which yields greater engagement, includes identifying which stakeholders are the most meaningful to the change (Grosevnor, 2021).  When the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system decided to engage this initiative, they would have been better suited to quickly identify the faculty unions as a valuable stakeholder and critical to the process.  This change could have helped the system avoid the position they were placed in by the union.

 

References

Grosevnor Performance Group (Grosevnor). (2021). The key to effective stakeholder engagement. Resources. Retrieved from: https://www.grosvenor.com.au/resources/key-to-effective-stakeholder-engagement/

Schmidt, P. (2014, October 24). Tensions between faculty members and consultants come to a head in Minn. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: https://www-chronicle-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/article/tensions-between-faculty-members-and-consultants-come-to-a-head-in-minn/

Jaime Discussion:

The key to an effective change initiative is communication. If one group feels they are not brought into an initiative in a timely fashion or feel that they not clearly being represented, there could be pushback. This could be seen in the case involving Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. The Minnesota state systems hired McKinsey & Company to help with a reorganization plan however the company unbeknownst to some was hired two years prior to being paid and was in on the initiative from the beginning (Schmidt, 2014). When the faculty union asked to see the agreement, McKinsey & Company said they would provide a redacted contract between the University system and them citing privacy discretion on trade secrets (Schmidt, 2014). Trade secrets should be made part of a public contract as oftentimes in public entities these contracts are offered to the public or can be FOILed at any time. It does seem that something may have been hidden that they did not want the public to be made aware of.  It could be why the heads of the two faculty unions relinquished their seats on the reorganization committee.

                If I were to design a change initiative for reorganization, I would have open communication from the start. No one likes hearing the word reorganization. I would assure the unions, and faculty and staff about the efforts being made after getting Board and cabinet approval. Of course, there is a right and wrong time to dispel information and not everyone needs to know everything at once. However, when appropriate information should be conferred and that starts when a company is hired. I would make the stakeholders aware of the company being hired and their role in the process. It was stated that McKinsey & Company’s role was clearly helping with structuring the reorganization process and not with ideas itself (Schmidt, 2014). However, with the secrecy of their involvement and the redacted contracts being offered, whether this was the case or not, it is easy to see why many were leery of the partnership. Their needs to be transparency (within legal and human resources specifications) about the process. Of course, the system does have a legal and ethical sense of privacy that they must uphold, but beyond that, I feel that if there was more open and upfront communication and effort made by all parties, much of the conflict could have been avoided and everyone would have had the chance to speak and feel that their voices were heard.

Reference

Schmidt, P (2014, October). Tensions between faculty members and consultants come to a head in

Minn. In Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www-chronicle-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/article/tensions-between-faculty-members-and-consultants-come-to-a-head-in-minn/