Psychology

Running Head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE #1 1

Kezar. K, & Eckel, P. (2002). “The Effect of Institutional Culture on Change Strategies in

Higher Education: Universal Principles or Culturally Responsive Concepts?” The

Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=edsjsr&AN=eds

jsr.1558422&site=eds-live

“The Effect of Institutional Culture on Change Strategies in Higher Education: Universal

Principles or Culturally Responsive Concepts?” is an article published in The Journal of

Higher Education that discusses the exuberant changes taking place in today’s higher

education. “The litany of changes is familiar to those in the field of higher education:

financial pressure, growth in technology, changing faculty roles, public scrutiny,

changing demographics, competing values, and the rapid rate of change in the world both

within and beyond our national borders (435).” The more specific changes discussed in

this article discuss methods of “buy-in” and how to “communicate effectively” (435).

When evaluating the need for change, most institutions collect micro-level data. This

data helps leaders to understand what needs to change or how to make changes for the

individual institution’s needs. The research conducted in the article was conducted

because it answers two different questions that have risen in “change” discussions: “(1)

is the institutional culture related to the change process, and how is it related? and (2) are

change processes thwarted by violating cultural norms or enhanced by culturally

sensitive strategies (436)?”

After studying six separate institutions, the results of studying data based on question

number one show that there was a relationship between culture and the change process,

Running Head: ARTICLE CRITIQUE #1 2

thereby answering question number two as well. Each campus implemented different

types of changes because (and answering the questions) each campus had a different

culture. Each campus’ different culture allowed different types of change because what

works on one campus would not/could not work on another campus due to these

differences in culture. This result allows a discussion of the lack of success in universal

changes. “…change strategies seem to be successful if they are culturally coherent or

aligned with the culture (457).” When change was conducted that went against the

institution’s culture, there was difficulty and resistance.

The research proved what the author’s predicted. Their predictions were that for leaders

to be able to lead effectively, they must first understand the culture they are working in.

The article quotes that they need to attempt to become cultural outsiders, or as Heifetz

(1994) suggests, they need to be able to "get on the balcony" to see the patterns on the

dance floor below (457).

For me, this seemed like the results should have been common sense, but I can see the

need for discussion. A lot of leaders that I have worked with or for do tend to try to use

universal strategies when something more tailored is appropriate. Through this

research, this was proven to be ineffective. Going forward, institutional leaders must be

able to effectively analyze the culture they are in and leading before adapting to change

or implementing strategies to conduct change.