Title: Preferred strategies of selected university student affairs administrators in implementing change using Nutt's four models of change implementation tactics
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00102737/00001
 Material Information
Title: Preferred strategies of selected university student affairs administrators in implementing change using Nutt's four models of change implementation tactics
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Woodham, Branan D., 1950-
Copyright Date: 1991
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00102737
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltuf - AJD5369
oclc - 25770609

Full Text











PREFERRED STRATEGIES OF SELECTED UNIVERSITY
STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS IN IMPLEMENTING CHANGE USING
NUTT'S FOUR MODELS OF CHANGE IMPLEMENTATION TACTICS












BY

BRANAN D. WOODHAM


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1991














ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Special recognition is made as a gesture of sincere appreciation to those special people

whose support and encouragement were instrumental in the completion of this undertaking.

Sincere appreciation goes to my committee members, Dr. Art Sandeen and Dr. John

James, and to my committee chair, Dr. James Wattenbarger, for their encouragement,

support, and patience. They served as true mentors and colleagues as they helped, taught,

and guided me through this process.

To my friends from the Division of Housing, University of Florida, especially Jim

Grimm, Terry MacDonald, Norbert Dunkel, Daisy Waryold, Carla Jones, and Jack Worley, a

special thanks for their professional support and enduring patience during this project. A

special recognition goes out to two colleagues, also from the Division of Housing, Cathy

Ponikvar and Sue James, who passed away during the years I was pursuing this dissertation.

They were personal and professional supporters of my efforts: friends, whom I miss, and

think of often.

Very special thanks are extended to Gene Luna, my friend. His support,

encouragement, enthusiasm, laughter, positive outlook, and friendship helped pull me through

each night we attended class together; through each night we read and studied in the library;

through our qualifying exam and through each page that was written on this dissertation. He

remains one of my closest friends and colleagues. I am truly grateful to the doctoral program

for providing the forum for our friendship to develop.








Lastly, to my family go my warmest thanks. My parents, Brannan and Ursula, have

always told me I could do anything I wanted to, as long as I was willing to work for it. They

were right. Their support and love has meant a great deal to me, not only on this project, but

throughout life. I am happy that I have made them proud. My appreciation also goes to my

brothers, Brian and Keith, and to my sister, Ursula, for their support and encouragement. I

have been blessed with two sets of in-laws that have also lent their support. To Dot, Darrell,

Tom and Lula Mae, I also say thank you.

It is difficult to simply say thank you to my wife, Jeffie, and my son, Brannan. They

have sacrificed so many nights and weekends for me. Being patient, as I was gone during

those night and weekend hours over several years. To them I apologize for the time that was

taken from them so that I could pursue this degree. It was their wish that I do so, and their

support was unwavering; but I bear a sense of guilt for all the time stolen from them for my

benefit. I pray that God will allow me to pay back their sacrifice in other ways as we

continue our life together. To my wife, Jeffie, and my son, Brannan, I say with all my love,

thank you.















TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................... ii

LIST OF TABLES ................ ............. .............. vi

A BSTRA CT ............................................. viii

CHAPTERS

I DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY ........................... 1

Introduction ............................................ 1
Statement of the Problem .................................... 4
Theoretical Framework .................................... 8
Overview of Research Methodology ........................... 12
Organization of the Study .................................. 16

II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................... 18

Overview .................................... ....... 18
Nutt's Model of Change Implementation Tactics .................. 18
Planned Change and Change Implementation ................. .... 26
Management Functions ......... ........................ 35
Chapter Summary ........................................ 40

III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................... 41

Research Objectives ...................................... 41
Research Population and Sample ............................. 43
Development of the Instrument ................. ............. 44
Design and Printing of the Instrument ................. ........ 48
Administration of the Instrument ................ ............ 49
Treatment of the Data ..................................... 50
Chapter Summary .................... ................... 52

IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ............... 53

Research Population and Sample .............. .. ............ 53
Analysis of the Data ............ ..... .................. 54
Chapter Summary ............. .......................... 81








V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .......................... 83

Development of the Study ................................ 83
Summary of Major Findings ............................... 89
Conclusions ..................... ................ 91
Im plications ........................ ................. 92
Implications for Future Research ............................. 96




APPENDICES

A Instructions to Judges for Validation of Scenarios for
Survey Instrument ......................... .. ......... 98

B Scenario Validation Instrument ............................. 99

C Instructions to Judges for Validation of Responses for
Study Survey Instrument ................................. 107

D Survey Responses Validation Instrument ....................... 108

E Letter to ACUHO-I Research and Information Committee ............ 112

F Cover Letter for Study Survey Directed to Chief Housing
Officers and Professional Housing Staff ....................... 114

G Cover Letter for Study Survey Directed to Chief Student
Affairs Officers ...................................... 116

H Follow-up Letter to Respondents ............................ 118

I Survey Instrument ................... ......... ......... 119

J Table of General Demographic Information ..................... 129




REFERENCES ................... ....................... 130

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................... 133














LIST OF TABLES


Table


2-1 Summary of Nutt's Change Implementation Tactics .


4-1 Cross-Comparison of the Implementation Tactics
Using a Simple t-test for Significance ...........


Page


4-2 Analysis of Variance for the Application of the
Intervention Tactic Across Student Affairs
Groups ......................................... 59


4-3 Analysis of Variance for the Application of the
Participation Tactic Across Student Affairs
Groups ...................... ...... ......... . ... 61


4-4 Analysis of Variance for the Application of the
Persuasion Tactic Across Student Affairs
Groups ...................................... ...... 62


4-5 Results of Bonferonni Pairwise Comparison
t-tests for the Application of the
Persuasion Tactic by Student Affairs Groups . . . . . . ...... 63


4-6 Analysis of Variance for the Application of the
Edict Tactic Across Student Affairs Groups . . . . . . . ... . 64


4-7 Analysis of Variance for the Application of the
Intervention Tactic by Student Affairs Groups
Within Each Functional Area of Management . . . . . . . ....... 66









Table


4-8 Analysis of Variance for the Application of the
Participation Tactic by the Student Affairs
Groups Within Each Functional Area of Management . . . . . ..... 69


4-9 Results of Bonferonni Pairwise Comparison
t-tests for the Application of the
Participation Tactic by Student Affairs Groups
Within the Management Function of Controlling


4-10 Analysis of Variance for the Application of the
Persuasion Tactic by Student Affairs Groups
Within Each Functional Area of Management ..


4-11 Results of Bonferonni Pairwise Comparison
t-tests for the Application of the
Persuasion Tactic by Student Affairs Groups
Within the Management Function of Organizing


4-12 Results of Bonferonni Pairwise Comparison
t-tests for the Application of the
Persuasion Tactic by Student Affairs Groups
Within the Management Function of Leading ..


4-13 Results of Bonferonni Pairwise Comparison
t-tests for the Application of the
Persuasion Tactic by Student Affairs Groups
Within the Management Function of Controlling


4-14 Analysis of Variance for the Application of the
Edict Tactic by Student Affairs Groups Within
Each Functional Area of Management . . .


. . . . . . . . . 7 1





. . . . . . . . . 7 4






. . . . . . . . . 7 6






. . . . . . . 7 7


. . . . . . . 80


Page













Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


PREFERRED STRATEGIES OF SELECTED UNIVERSITY STUDENT
AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS IN IMPLEMENTING CHANGE USING
NUTT'S FOUR MODELS OF CHANGE IMPLEMENTATION TACTICS

by

Branan D. Woodham

December 1991


Chairperson: Dr. James L. Wattenbarger
Major Department: Educational Leadership


The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceived applicability of change tactics,

as represented by Nutt's model of four change implementation tactics, by three groups of

student affairs staff in the implementation of planned change in the administration of college

and university student housing operations.

The researcher developed and validated an instrument that presented typical change

situations occurring in college and university housing operations. The scenarios were divided

into the four management function areas of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling.

Following each scenario were four responses that represented Nutt's four implementation

tactics. The survey instrument was mailed to three groups of student affairs administrators

involved with the supervision and management of on campus student housing. The three

administrative groups were the chief student affairs officer, the chief housing officer, and

members of the professional housing staff immediately subordinate to the chief housing







officer. All groups were from public institutions with on campus housing populations of 2000

or greater. There were 100 administrators in each of the three groups drawn from an

institutional sample of 178.

Simple t-tests and one-way analyses of variance were used to analyze the data. If

significant differences existed, a follow-up procedure, the Bonferroni test for significance, was

used to identify specific differences.

The results of the study provided support for the application of Nutt's model to change

implementation in student housing administration. The study also extended the application of

Nutt's model to higher education administration and identified differences in the perceived

applicability of the four change implementation tactics.

In overall application of the implementation tactics, administrators viewed each tactic as

statistically different from the other tactics. None of the three groups of administrators

differed in their application of the participation, intervention or edict tactics to change

situations. The application of the persuasion tactic to change situations differed significantly

between the chief student affairs officers and both the chief housing officers and the

professional housing staff.

The application of the implementation tactics to change situations within the functional

areas of management provided several significant differences among the three administrative

groups. The persuasion tactic provided most of the significant differences while the edict

tactic showed no differences in application.















CHAPTER I
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY



Introduction

Change, as described by Lindquist (1978, p. 1), is "the modification of, deletion of,

or addition to attitudes and behaviors existing in a person, group, organization or larger

system." With this definition it is easy to see that change is a pervasive factor in daily life

and in almost anything with which one is involved. Miller and Prince (1976, p. 1) begin

their book, The Future of Student Affairs, with the statement "nothing is permanent but

change itself," and then proceed to discuss the need for institutions and individuals to assume

the obligation to participate actively in the process of change. The authors continue the

discussion about change by pointing out the role that higher education has played throughout

this country's history by aiding society in a positive fashion as it changed from a rural,

agricultural colony to a complex, industrial world power. Higher education has responded to

a changing society by developing innovative delivery systems such as community colleges,

continuing education programs, external degree programs, evening and weekend instruction,

cluster colleges, study abroad programs, and the like. Not only must colleges and universities

as institutions participate in change, the individuals who manage and administer those

institutions must be able to manage the change process successfully. Hodgkinson, in The

Modern American College (Chickering et al, 1981), pointed out that since 1975 more

attention has been paid to the training and development of institutional administrators than

ever before. The result, he feels, is that today's institutions are much better managed in

1










terms of planning, budgeting, admissions, and record keeping. But he adds that this training

has not kept pace with modern education. Implicit in this statement is the need to invest

further in the management of planned change. There is a need to provide administrators with

processes, methods, guidelines, and strategies so they may effectively use change to reach

desired goals.

Bennis, Benne, and Chin (1985) have observed that change occurs through two basic

systems of thought: the law of nonintervention and the law of radical intervention. Within

both of these areas of thought there are extremes. On the nonintervention side is the concept

of laissez-faire doctrine, in which any attempt to alter the natural course of events is seen as

negative tampering with the human condition which, if left untouched, would bring about a

more optimized good life (Bennis, Benne, & Chin, 1985). At the other extreme, radical

intervention for change is seen in the Marxian theory of class struggle with its emphasis on

conflict even to the point of creating human suffering to bring about change.

According to Bennis, Benne, and Chin (1985) planned change emerges as the only

feasible alternative to the above two areas of thought. They propose the definition of planned

change as "a method which self-consciously and experimentally employs social knowledge to

help solve the problems of men and societies" (p. 3). Combining the two definitions used

above of change, and planned change, planned change can also be thought of as a conscious,

thoughtful, purposeful, organized, and knowledgeable approach to the modification of,

deletion of, or addition to attitudes and behaviors existing in a person, group, organization, or

larger system. Tushman (1974, p. 1) puts forth a definition of planned change largely

developed by Lippitt (1958), wherein planned change is defined as a decision to make a

deliberate effort to improve the system and to obtain the help of a change agent in making this

improvement."










Planned change can be examined from a number of viewpoints. It can be studied

from its theory base, its impact on humans and systems, its outcomes, various strategies for

implementation, a historical perspective, or from the viewpoint of the tactics used to

implement a change. In this study change will be examined from the viewpoint of tactics

used to implement change. With institutions of higher education facing a modern world of

rapidly changing situations and conditions, it becomes essential for institutional administrators

to be able to alter successfully current ways of accomplishing things and to incorporate

different or new ways of addressing those problems. Numerous publications point to the need

to be able to address and implement changes (Astin, 1985; Chickering et al, 1981; Hersey &

Blanchard, 1982; Kanter, 1983; Martel, 1986; Miller & Prince, 1976; Peters, 1985,1987;

Peters & Waterman, 1982). With the need to change established policy, directions, and

patterns of accomplishing tasks, institutions require tools and guidelines with which to

evaluate, plan, and implement change.

Paul C. Nutt (1986) conducted a study in which he evaluated the planned change

implementation efforts of 91 service oriented institutions. Nutt, through his research, found

that 93% of all the planned change implementation tactics used by the managers in these 91

institutions could be classified into four descriptive categories. These tactics were also studied

as to their rate of success in implementing the planned change.

This study focused on the preferred application of the planned change tactics,

described by Nutt, to management situations in on-campus student housing administration by

three groups of student affairs staff. The student affairs staff examined in this study were the

Chief Student Affairs Officer, the Chief Housing Officer, and a subordinate member of the

professional housing staff. The study was limited to four-year public institutions with on-

campus single student housing bed space of 2000 or more.











Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceived appropriateness of change

tactics, as represented by Nutt's model of four change implementation tactics, by three groups

of student affairs staff in the implementation of planned change in the administration of

college and university student housing operations.

This study is designed to test the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1

There are no differences between the perceived appropriateness for applicability of the

four change implementation tactics by the three student affairs staff groups across the

functional areas of management as defined by a four function model.

Hypothesis 2

There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff in their

perceived appropriateness for the application of Nutt's intervention tactic to student housing

administrative tasks structured across a four function model of management.

Hypothesis 3

There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff in their

perceived appropriateness for the application of Nutt's participation tactic to student housing

administrative tasks structured across a four function model of management.

Hypothesis 4

There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff in their

perceived appropriateness for the application of Nutt's persuasion tactic to student housing

administrative tasks structured across a four function model of management.










Hypothesis 5

There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff in their

perceived appropriateness for the application of Nutt's edict tactic to student housing

administrative tasks structured across a four function model of management.

Hypothesis 6

There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff in regard to

their perceived appropriateness for the application of the intervention implementation tactic to

housing administrative tasks within the four functional areas of management.

Hypothesis 7

There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff in regard to

their perceived appropriateness for the application of the participation implementation tactic to

housing administrative tasks within the four functional areas of management.

Hypothesis 8

There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff in regard to

their perceived appropriateness for the application of the persuasion implementation tactic to

housing administrative tasks within the four functional areas of management.

Hypothesis 9

There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff in regard to

their perceived appropriateness for the application of the edict implementation tactic to

housing administrative tasks within the four functional areas of management.

Justification of the Study

The literature of higher education, from student affairs through academic affairs, is

filled with calls for change. Whether it be Astin's call for excellence through student

involvement (Astin, 1985); numerous national reports on the post-secondary education itself,










i.e., Involvement in Learning (1984), Integrity in the College Curriculum (1985), College:

The Undergraduate Experience in America (Boyer, 1987); Hodgkinson's (1983) predictions

concerning students for the decades ahead; or Keller's (1983) call for a new style of leader for

institutions, these reports seem to indicate the need for change. Few, if any, of these studies

provide methods on how to implement planned change or how to carry out successfully the

goals they have expressed. It would seem evident from these calls for change that knowing

how to go about changing, from a administrative perspective, would be essential. Keller

(1983, p. 26) puts it explicitly by stating, "Colleges and universities clearly need to plan for

these--and other--upheavals and to construct a more active, change-oriented management style.

The era of laissez-faire campus administration is over." If administrators, in general, and

student affairs officers, in particular, are going to be able to move their institutions or

departments ahead in a more effective manner, there is clearly a need, not only to understand

change, but also to know what tactics for accomplishing change might be effectively

employed. To this end, an understanding of the preferred methods or approaches to the

implementation of change by the individuals involved in the process could prove helpful to the

sponsor or initiator of that change. The use of Nutt's taxonomy of change implementation

tactics could also prove helpful to the student affairs officer seeking specific tactics through

which to proceed in implementing a planned change.

As indicated above, administrators in all aspects of higher education are either called

upon or are beginning to be called upon to respond to change. As part of this administrative

group in higher education, those student affairs officers charged with the administration and

management of student housing operations are also faced with critical decisions that call for

them to implement successful changes. Campus housing operations generally have

responsibility for the health, well-being, safety, and education of the students that live in the










facilities administered by the organization. Student housing operations also involve financial

responsibilities that range from several thousands of dollars to several millions, depending on

the role and scope of the particular organization. The organization may consist of a few

individuals with one or more professional staff and student staff. Or, the organization may

have hundreds of employees with several levels of professionally trained individuals, full-time

clerical, maintenance and custodial staff as well as student employees. The chief housing

officer is generally the student affairs officer charged with the direct responsibility for the

student housing organization. Within this organization there are generally subordinate levels

of professional staff to whom the chief housing officer delegates some of the authority for the

operation of the organization. The chief housing officer is most frequently supervised by the

chief student affairs officer. The housing operation is, in many instances, considered an

income-producing auxiliary enterprise that not only funds itself and its requirements, but may

also provide funds used by other campus departments. The individuals involved with the

management and operation of a student housing organization consider themselves educators.

They are generally responsible for providing educational, developmental, cultural, social, and

classroom supporting activities for the resident students, most often through the staff they

employ. They are also called upon to educate students through a system of disciplinary action

and by holding students accountable for typical life responsibilities such as following

procedures and policies and fulfilling contractual and financial obligations. The housing

organization, through its staff, policies, actions, and activities, fulfills a variety of roles in the

campus environment. Because of this multifaceted role, the student affairs staff directing the

housing operation are frequently faced with the need to develop new policies, procedures,

programs, budgets, staffing patterns, and training requirements.










In most instances within the area of housing administration and management, changes

significant to the overall operation are initiated at the chief student affairs officer level or at

the chief housing officer level. After the changes have been decided upon, the subordinate

staff levels within the housing organization are often asked to participate in the decision

making steps or in the implementation steps. To accomplish change in the most effective

manner, those individuals involved in the implementation and decision making process should

maintain a similar view as to the preferred approach to the implementation of those changes.

Varying views on the preferred approach to the implementation of a planned change by those

in the chain of command responsible for management of the changes could create unnecessary

conflict, lack of support, and possibly lack of success for the overall project. For these

reasons it appeared that to focus this study on the administrative levels of chief student affairs

officer, chief housing officer, and professional level housing staff would be highly appropriate

and beneficial.

Theoretical Framework

As a result of his research, Nutt developed four descriptive categories that delineate

approximately 93% of the planned change implementation tactics used by a selected group of

managers in selected service-related institutions. The four implementation tactics as described

by Nutt are as follows:

Intervention. To initiate change processes, the manager-sponsors become protagonists

by creating rationales for action in the minds of key people, appraising performance levels,

and demonstrating performance inadequacies by applying new norms created by these

rationales. Nutt (1986,1987) found that the implementation by intervention tactic was used in

17% (Nutt, 1986) and 21% (Nutt, 1987) of the cases he examined with a change adoption

success rate of 100% in both study reports.










Participation. Manager-sponsors initiate change processes by stipulating needs or

opportunities and then assigning decisions for developmental activities. Participation involved

several levels of involvement: token participation, delegated participation, complete

participation, and comprehensive participation. Nutt reported that implementation by

participation was observed in 17% (Nutt, 1986) and 15% (Nutt, 1987) of the cases studied

with an overall change adoption success rate of 84% reported from the 1986 study and 78%

in the 1987 study.

Persuasion. Manager-sponsors make little effort to manage change processes and

monitor their progress due to disinterest, lack of knowledge, or powerful or persuasive

protagonists. Change process is allowed to be controlled by experts. Experts present

products for approval. They make attempts to sell options that performed best, using

projected benefits to argue for adoption. Sponsors take passive roles, encouraging sales

pitches from interested parties so they could weigh imperatives to act. In his studies, Nutt

found 29% (Nutt, 1986) and 48% (Nutt, 1987) occurrence of implementation by persuasion

with a change adoption success rate of 73% reported from the 1986 study and 74% from the

1987 study. Implementation by persuasion was the most frequently employed of all the tactics

reported by Nutt but was not reported as the most successful for the successful adoption of the

planned change.

Edict. Edict involves the sponsor using control and personal power while avoiding

any form of participation. Three key features are (a) sponsor's control of change process is

intermittent with no common theme, (b) sponsors do not discuss changes with users in any

attempt to justify the need for change, and (c) sponsors issue directives by managerial fiat.

Managers simply announced changes. Nutt's research revealed a use rate of 23% (1986) and










16% (1987) from his case studies with an overall successful change adoption rate of 43%

reported from the 1986 study and 40% in the 1987 study.

Significance of the Study

There is much in the literature concerning planned change and the various theories

and processes involved in such activity (Bennis, Benne, & Chin, 1985; Lindquist, 1978).

However, there seems to be a distinct lack of research concerning the actual implementation

of planned change and the role and nature of tactics involved in such a process. There is a

lack of descriptive guidelines with which an administrator may consult to plan the

implementation of a proposed change.

The literature indicates that administrators must be prepared to foster and implement

planned change as a part of their role as leaders and decision makers within institutions.

They must be prepared to respond to the rapidly changing political, economic, and social

environment of today's world by not only understanding theory but also being able to apply

successfully theory to problems. It is not only important to understand why change occurs or

why it has occurred already but also how to implement it successfully in the future.

Delimitations

1. The study was limited to the perceptions of the chief student affairs officer, the chief

housing officer, and the professional level housing staff as related to the management of on-

campus student housing.

2. The change implementation tactics studied were limited to those formulated by Nutt.

3. The study was limited to those housing organizations which house 2000 or more single

students.










Assumptions

In this study the following assumptions were made:

1. Respondents responded accurately and honestly to the survey instrument used in

this study.

2. The survey instrument, as developed and validated, was appropriate for assessing

perception of change implementation tactics of the student affairs officers that participated in

the study.

3. The four function model of management, planning, organizing, leading and

controlling, which was used as a structure to delineate the major elements of a chief housing

officer's job for the survey instrument, is an accurate description of, and structure for, such

duties.

Definition of Terms

Change is the modification of, deletion of, or addition to attitudes and behaviors

existing in a person, group, organization or larger system (Lindquist, 1978).

Planned change is change in which at least one of the individuals involved in the

process uses obvious, specific, and designed attempts to produce change (Bennis, Benne, &

Chin, 1985).

Student affairs is an administrative division in colleges and universities whose

responsibilities include programs and services that are designed to assist the personal growth

of students and complement their academic development.

Chief student affairs officer refers to that college or university administrator whose

principal responsibility is to oversee the operation of programs, services, and staff in the

division of student affairs.









12

Chief housing officer refers to that college or university administrator whose principal

responsibility is to oversee the staff, programs, budget, facilities, and general operation of that

department of a college or university that is responsible for on and off campus housing

provided for students.

Subordinate housing officer refers to a member of the professional (full-time, career)

housing staff directly responsible to the chief housing officer, generally with a title of assistant

or associate director of housing or residence life. This level of staff is generally responsible

for management of a portion of the housing operation.

Management refers to a process, a series of actions, activities, or operations that lead

to some end (Gibson, Ivancevich, & Donnelly, 1985). Usually the actions, activities, or

operations of management are accomplished with and through people.

Overview of Research Methodology

The primary intent of this study was to investigate the perceived appropriateness of

change tactics, as represented by Nutt's model of four change implementation tactics, by three

groups of student affairs staff in the implementation of planned change in the administration

of college and university student housing operations.

Selection of the Population and Sample

The population for this study consisted of all the chief student affairs officers, chief

housing officers, and subordinate housing officers at public four-year colleges and

universities. The population sample for the study was developed by a random selection of

100 respondents for each of the three student affairs staff groups, creating a total sample

population of 300. The samples were drawn from all public four year institutions that were

United States members of the Association of College and University Officers-International

(ACUHO-I) and that housed 2000 single students or more in their on-campus facilities.










ACUHO-I is an international organization designed to represent, foster, develop, promote,

and improve the field of college and university housing administration. It has a total

international membership of nearly 700 schools representing public, private, religious, and

proprietary institutions of both the 2- and 4-year type. The total number of institutions

qualifying as the accessible population was 178, according to the 1989 ACUHO-I Directory

(Sautter, 1989). Any institution that did not have all three groups of student affairs staff was

eliminated from the study. Subordinate housing officers selected for this study were

determined based on the organizational position that would be immediately subordinate to the

chief housing officer. The selection was based on the title listed in the 1989 ACUHO-I

Directory in the order of (a) associate director, or equivalent title; (b) assistant director, or

equivalent title; and (c) coordinator, or equivalent title. In cases of multiple holders of

similar titles, a random selection was initiated to select the respondent.

Instrumentation

The intent of this study was to investigate the perceived appropriateness of certain

change tactics, as represented by Nutt's model of four change implementation tactics, by three

groups of student affairs staff in the implementation of planned change across a range of

managerial tasks. The tasks were those performed by chief housing officers in the

administration of college and university student housing programs.

To develop the instrumentation, a structure or basis for the managerial functions of a

chief housing officer was needed. An examination of the literature revealed numerous

descriptions of the functions of management. Much of what is written in the literature is

based upon the work of Henri Fayol, considered to be the father of modern management

theory (Koontz & O'Donnell, 1976). Fayol developed fourteen general principles of

management that he derived from his observations and experiences. From these fourteen










principles he described the "functional elements" of management as planning, organizing,

commanding, coordinating, and controlling. Fayol considered these functions to be universal

functions that apply not only to business operations but also to political, religious,

educational, military, and other enterprises (Koontz & O'Donnell, 1976). For this study a

four part description of the functions of management was used. These four functions were

supported in the literature by several authors which included Gibson et al, 1985; Koontz and

O'Donnell, 1976; Longenecker, 1977; Mescon et al, 1981; and Trewatha and Newport, 1979.

The four functional elements of management used in this study were planning, organizing,

leading, and controlling. These four functional elements provide a model that was necessary

to achieve a common framework of administrative or managerial tasks that could be applied to

the role of chief housing officer.

Individually defined, the elements of this functional model are as follows:

Planning. That function which consists of determining what should be done in the

future. It consists of determining the goals, objectives, policies, procedures, and other plans

needed to achieve the purposes of the organization.

Organizing. This function includes all managerial activities that are used to translate

the required planned activities into a structure of tasks and authority.

Leading. This function is also called influencing, motivating, or directing. The

leading function of a manager includes guiding, teaching, and supervising subordinates. It

also means issuing orders and instructions so that tasks are accomplished. It carries the

responsibility for developing the abilities of the staff to their maximum potential by directing,

teaching, and coaching them effectively.









15

Controlling. The managerial function of controlling involves those activities that are

necessary to make certain that objectives are achieved as planned. Controlling means to

determine whether or not plans are being met; whether or not progress is being made toward

objectives; and to act, if necessary, to correct deviations and shortcomings.

Through a review of the literature and interviews with professional and academic

staff, five specific tasks or roles were identified for each of the functional areas of the

management model. The list of tasks and roles were submitted for review and revision to a

group of three individuals recognized as having expertise in the field of student housing

administration. The three tasks receiving the most favorable response from the three experts

for each of the four functional areas of management were used for this study.

An instrument titled, "A Study of Change Implementation Tactics in Student Housing

Management," (Appendix I) was designed by the writer. For each of the three tasks

identified for the four functional areas of the management model, a hypothetical situation was

presented and described. Each situation described a common predicament in the student

housing administrative setting that would require the implementation of change. Following

each situation description were four response areas. The four response areas were each of

Nutt's four change implementation tactics.

Respondents were asked to indicate their degree of preferred application of each

change implementation tactic as an approach to the implementation of the changes) they

deemed necessary for the situation presented. On the survey, following each hypothetical

change situation, respondents rated each tactic on a one (1) to five (5) scale, with 1

representing a "never applicable" approach and 5 indicating an "always applicable" approach

as an indication of their preference for that tactic as an approach to the changes) they saw

necessary.










Data Collection

The instrument was mailed to the three groups of student affairs officers from the

institutions selected for the study. There were a total of 100 respondents selected for each

group of student affairs officers from the 178 institutions included in the study. A letter

(Appendix F) from James L. Wattenbarger, Director of the Institute of Higher Education at

the University of Florida, and James C. Grimm, Director of Housing at the University of

Florida and former President of the Association of College and University Housing Officers-

International, and an endorsement from the Research and Information Committee of

ACUHO-I were all included with the survey. A letter (Appendix G) of endorsement from C.

Arthur Sandeen, Vice President for Student Affairs at the University of Florida, was

substituted for the letter from James C. Grimm in those surveys mailed to chief student affairs

officers. The letters described the nature of the study and the need to support the research.

Self-addressed, stamped, return envelopes were provided to facilitate the return of the survey.

A follow-up letter and survey were sent approximately two weeks later to those student affairs

officers who had failed to respond by the initial deadline.

Analyses of Data

To analyze the responses, one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) and t-tests were

used. The data were analyzed to determine (a) the overall difference in the perceptions of the

three groups of student affairs staff as related to the preferred application of Nutt's tactics of

change in an administrative setting in college and university housing and (b) the relationship

between applicability of model and functional areas of management.

Organization of the Study

The introduction and general overview of the scope of this research study are

presented in Chapter I. Chapter II presents research and literature relevant to planned change








17

and implementation tactics in post-secondary educational administration and in a general

managerial setting, as well as further information on Nutt's four models of change

implementation tactics. Chapter III describes the methodology and design used in the study.

Chapter IV presents the results and analysis of the data. Chapter V consists of a discussion of

the results of this research study.















CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


This chapter will provide an overview of the literature as it relates to Nutt's model of

change implementation tactics and management within student housing. Areas reviewed will

include Nutt's model of change implementation tactics, the functional elements management,

and planned change.

Nutt's Model of Change Implementation Tactics

Nutt (1986, p. 230) described implementation as "a series of steps taken by

responsible organizational agents in planned change processes to elicit compliance needed to

install changes." Previous research has reported many failures in the area of implementation

(Nutt, 1986). These failures are generally attributable to "(1) individuals or groups who

attempt to maintain relationships, sustain existing procedures, to retain control over valued

activities that would be altered, and (2) to misunderstandings or disagreements about expected

benefits" (Nutt, 1986, p. 230). Success of change activities then is dependent on the

manager's ability to negate, redirect, or contain the attitudes and/or activities that tend to

obstruct or inhibit the desired change. The purpose of Nutt's research was threefold: to

identify and describe specific change implementation strategies, to establish relative success of

those strategies, and to identify the conditions under which these tactics are used.

Nutt's Research

Nutt devised a research study centered around 91 case studies of service type

organizations such as hospitals, government or nonprofit agencies, charities, and professional










societies. The organizations in the study were widely dispersed in the United States and

Canada. Nutt contacted the chief executive, financial, or operating officer of each company

in the study and requested that they participate by profiling one of their organization's

changes. The only guideline imposed by the study was that the change had to have had

significant importance to their organizations. Multiple interviews were conducted with three

individuals in the organization. In addition to the chief executive, financial, or operating

officer, interviews were conducted with the sponsor of the planned change activity (the actual

manager charged with the responsibility for the change implementation) and one other

executive also intimately familiar with the change. The interviews were both structured and

unstructured. Interviews were conducted until all pertinent information was gathered and all

differences among the executives were reconciled. From the study analysis Nutt was able to

distinguish four types of implementation tactics and within-tactics variations that were used in

93% of the cases.

Nutt's Implementation Tactics

Nutt grouped and named the four tactic categories as (a) intervention, (b)

participation, (c) persuasion, and (d) edict (Nutt, 1986, 1987). In all situations the central

theme of the tactic is the action of the change agent and the steps that individual takes in

initiating and processing the planned change.

Implementation by Intervention

In implementation by intervention Nutt (1986) indicated that the manager/sponsor

initiates the change process. The manager/sponsor became the central advocate for the

change, creating the rationales or need for the change action in the minds of those key

individuals involved (Nutt, 1987). The manager/sponsor actively appraises the current

performance levels and demonstrates the performance inadequacies by applying the new









20
standards thus creating rationales for change. Nutt (1986) also described the manager/sponsor

using a variety of techniques to justify new performance standards. The manager might use

descriptions of how current practices might be improved or cite other organizations of

comparable missions with more favorable performance levels as examples of how proposed

changes might be of benefit. The use of input from interested parties was also a feature of

implementation by intervention as described by Nutt (1986). Task forces might be called on

to provide ideas, act as sounding boards, or to provide feedback as changes were put into

place. The manager/sponsor retains full control of the change process with the authority to

veto any suggestions by users or task forces. Once the manager/sponsor has adequately

justified and consulted about the proposed changes, the changes are installed and monitored

for performance or situational improvement. Nutt (1986,1987) found that the implementation

by intervention tactic was used in 17% (Nutt, 1986) and 21% (Nutt, 1987) of the cases he

examined with a change adoption success rate of 100% in both study reports.

Implementation by Participation

Nutt (1986, 1987) stated that the implementation by participation tactic begins with

the manager/sponsor responsible for the change process defining the needs or opportunities

that exist within the organization. The manager/sponsor then delegates the development of

the change activities to a specified group or task force made up of carefully selected members.

The members are carefully selected to represent a variety of ideas and viewpoints consistent

with the parties or stakeholders affected by the planned change (Nutt, 1986, 1987). The

delegation by the manager/sponsor of responsibility to the task force or assigned development

group often carries with it specified constraints, expectations, and possible support personnel

to aid in the change development process. The groups are expected to come to consensus

about key features, and the group leader does not have veto power over group decisions. The










key feature of the implementation by participation was the fact that the designated task force

or development group was given decision making authority in the change process (Nutt,

1987). Once the planned changes) are installed, performance monitoring for improvement is

carried out. Nutt (1986) described four types of participation implementation differentiated by

the level of participation by stakeholders. Comprehensive participation is described as

delegation of the change development process to a fully representative task force with a

membership that accounts for all important stakeholders. "This approach has the greatest

cooptative potential owing to the breadth of the role and extent of participation (Nutt, 1986,

p. 246). He pointed out, however, that comprehensive participation rarely occurs in practice

and indicated that none of the participation tactic cases in his study used a comprehensive

model. The next type of participation level Nutt reported is called complete participation.

Complete participation is differentiated from comprehensive participation by the level of

restrictions placed on the change development group of task force. A task force in a complete

participation model may offer ideas or set directions with the actual development process left

to staff specialists (Nutt, 1986). Complete participation is seen as a less cooptative approach

because of the restrictions placed on the task force. Nutt's study found that just 14% of the

participation tactic cases were of this type. A third type of participation described by Nutt is

termed delegated participation. As the name implies, delegated participation allows for the

task force or change development group membership to consist of representatives of the key

stakeholder interests. In Nutt's study delegated participation accounted for 72% of the

participation cases. The least cooptative form of participation and the fourth described by

Nutt is token participation. Token participation groups generally do not adequately represent

the stakeholder groups and are not able to convince those groups of the necessity of the

desired changes. In his study Nutt found that 14% of the participation tactic cases had these









22
characteristics. He also found that this model of participation was unable to cause the adoption

of any changes. Nutt reported that implementation by participation was observed in 17%

(Nutt, 1986) and 15% (Nutt, 1987) of the cases studied, with an overall change adoption

success rate of 84% reported from the 1986 study and 78% in the 1987 study.

Implementation by Persuasion

The key element in implementation by persuasion as described by Nutt (1986) is the

lack of effort by the manager/sponsor to manage the change process and monitor the progress.

The manager/sponsor "implicitly or explicitly delegates the development of ideas consistent

with priority strategic directions to technical staff or consultants" (Nutt, 1987, p. 5). The

persuasion tactic begins with the manager/sponsor stating or describing the needs or

opportunities. The change development process is then relinquished to experts or consultants.

There is very little intervention or review by the manager/sponsor during the change

development process. In Nutt's persuasion tactic the experts develop ideas for the change

process and attempt to sell these ideas to the manager/sponsor. The manager/sponsor

becomes active in the change process only after the experts have sold their ideas and

sometimes presented extensive documentation. Once convinced of the change process

developed by the experts, the changes are initiated with follow-up monitoring and evaluation

of performance improvements. Nutt (1986) observed two particular areas of variation in the

persuasion tactic: one being between the use of content and process experts and the other

being the distinction between external consultants and internal staff as experts for the change

implementation process. Content experts were those individuals skilled in topics or systems

and sold "turn-key" plans to the manager/sponsor. Process experts were described as those

individuals skilled in procedures for change implementation. The differentiation between

internal and external experts pertain to whether the individuals entrusted with the change










development process were current members of the organization or were from outside of the

organization. In the implementation by persuasion cases studied by Nutt, 70% of the expert

consultants were internal to the organization with the remaining 30% hired consultants. In his

studies, Nutt found 29% (Nutt, 1986) and 48% (Nutt, 1987) occurrence of implementation by

persuasion with a change adoption success rate of 73% reported from the 1986 study and 74%

from the 1987 study. Implementation by persuasion was the most frequently employed of all

the tactics reported by Nutt but was not reported as the most successful for the successful

adoption of the planned change.

Implementation by Edict

Nutt (1986) described implementation by edict as a change process in which the

manager/sponsor uses personal and positional power to impose the change desired. The

manager/sponsor retains complete control of the change process, seeking little or no input

from stakeholders. No participation is employed at all. Nutt (1986) characterized

implementation by edict as having three key features. First, there appear to be intermittent

control of the change process with no central or common theme. This lack of pattern extend

to monitoring activities and any formal delegation of responsibility. Secondly, Nutt points out

that no attempt is made by the manager/sponsor to justify or explain rationales for changes.

They simply expect user compliance. No attempt was made to demonstrate any needs for or

the feasibility of changes that are mandated. Thirdly, the method of communication of the

changes is by "managerial fiat" describing the changes and expected new behaviors.

Manager/sponsors simply announce changes. The medium of communication is often via

memoranda, formal presentations, or in-service instruction that specify expected behaviors of

the users. Nutt's research revealed a use rate of 23% (1986) and 16% (1987) from his case








24
studies with an overall successful change adoption rate of 43% reported from the 1986 study

and 40% in the 1987 study. Table 1 below displays a summary overview of the four

implementation tactics and the key features of each.










Table 2.1

Summary of Nutt's Change Implementation Tactics (Nutt, 1987)


Frequency
of Summary of Key Steps
Tactic Occurrence Key Features

Intervention 21% 1. A manager is delegated 1. New norms used to
Implementation authority to control a identify performance
planning process. problems in system that the
strategy is to change.
2. Groups are used to offer
advice which manager can 2. New norms justified
veto.
3. Illustrate how
performance can be
improved

4. Formulate plan

5. Show how plan
improves performance

Participation 15% 1. Group can specify plan 1. Manager stipulates
Implementation features, within prestated strategic needs and
constraints. opportunities

2. Staff is assigned to 2. Form planning group
support the planning group. by selecting stakeholders

3. Delegate planning to the
group and state intentions
(objectives and constraints)

4. Formulate plan

5. Cooptation of key
people










Table 2.1 (continued)



Fr

Tactic O0


Persuasion
Implementation


I 48%


1. Demonstrations of value

2. An expert manages the
planning process.


1. Manager stipulates
strategic needs and
opportunities.

2. Authorize an expert to
develop ideas responsive to
the strategy

3. Formulate plan

4. Expert uses persuasion
to sell manager on plan's
value as a response to a
strategic priority.


Edict 16% 1. The manager and staff 1. Sponsor stipulates
Implementation share process management, strategic needs and
opportunities.
2. Manager uses position
power to implement the 2. Formulate plan
plan.
3. Manager issues a
directive which calls for
plan adoption.


Planned Change and Change Implementation

Planned change and the various theories, strategies, and techniques are referred to under

several different names in the literature depending on the particular area of change focus, the

breadth of that focus, or because of the particular theoretical base held by the author.

Planned change and the many aspects of related techniques are often found referred to as

organizational development (Burke, 1982,1987; Conner & Lake, 1988) and organizational

change (Burke, 1982; Foster, 1986; Tushman, 1974). Much of the literature describing









27

decision making, planned change, and the various other change-related aspects of management

has been developed in the management and business journals and books (Blaesser, 1978).

Few writers of literature from the student affairs area devote themselves to the study of

managerial issues. Blaesser (1978, p. 112) referred to the lack of focus on the area of

organizational development within higher education with the statement "To the best of my

knowledge a comprehensive theory of organizational development for higher education is

nonexistent." He continued by pointing out that "organizational development, as an

interdisciplinary field, is less than two decades old; that most of its theories, technology, and

research stems from the work of social and behavioral scientists in business, industrial, and

governmental organizations." Blaesser (1978) described organizational development as an

approach to planned change that must receive the attention of administrators of institutions of

higher education. Organizational development is defined by French and Bell (1984, p. xiv) as

"the name given to the emerging behavioral science that seeks to improve organizations

through planned, long-range efforts focused on the organization's culture and its human and

social processes."

As related to student affairs, Kuh (1981) contested traditional thoughts regarding

organizational change and emphasized the critical nature of having knowledge regarding

environmental factors and the impact they have on relationships. There are three traditional

views that were challenged by Kuh: (a) mutually agreed upon goals are the basis upon which

units and institutions are organized, (b) rational decision making is the basis of action, and (c)

communication among all levels of an organization is clear and understood by all levels or is

tightly coupled. Kuh related that specific and rational goals are not related directly to what

actually occurs, and personal goals, not group or organizational goals, are the central focus

for action. Political and economic factors are also contributory elements in decision making








28

along with those factors that are rational and systematic. He also related that communication

and mutual understanding of all issues are not clear, and student affairs is not highly

interdependent as a unit or as part of a large organization.

Many similar constructs of common elements found in the literature regarding change

were incorporated by Plato (1977). She described four principle assumptions about change as

follows: (a) the rational decision making model is used; (b) the "collegial model" of

administration is used in higher education; (c) current and future availability of monetary

resources for student affairs are not examined; and (d) there is an unconscious shift from the

individual to the organization. Based on these four basic assumptions, Plato (1977)

recommended strategies for the student affairs profession. The five strategies were (a) be

aware of fiscal resources; (b) view student development as a policy; (c) involve students in

implementation; (d) express the goals of the profession within the political model of

administration; and (e) include educational politics and planning, decision making theory,

organizational theory, and policy studies in the training of student development professionals.

The goals of the student affairs profession have received much greater definition in

recent years (Strange, 1981). To accomplish these goals as identified, it is important that an

understanding of the institutional dynamics that affect change be taken into consideration.

Strange (1981) cited the work of Hage and Aiken (1974) who identified four steps involved in

program implementation and who also described seven organizational variables that affect the

rate and success of program innovation.

The four steps involved in program innovation were evaluation, initiation, implementation,

and routinization. Evaluation is when the organization is determined to be in need of change

to become more effective or proficient. Initiation is the next step when it is decided that a

specific change is to be made. Implementation begins when the desired change occurs. The










final stage, routinization, is the acceptance of the change represented by the new activity or

program. The effect of the change depends on seven variables within an organization. These

variables are formalization, centralization, production, efficiency, complexity, stratification,

and job satisfaction.

The theoretical framework presented by Hage and Aiken is viewed by Strange (1981)

as a viable one in which student affairs professionals can systematically approach change

within an organization.

Change Implementation

Change, change management, the implementation of change, organizational

development, and the techniques of organizational change are all popular topics of many

journal articles and books. All of these phrases relate to change in some fashion. Change is

described as a tendency toward movement, growth, development, process (Bennis, Benne, &

Chin, 1985). Dalziel and Schoonover (1988, p. 10) defined change in an organization "as a

planned or unplanned response of an organization to pressures". Lindquist (1978, p. 1)

defined change as "the modification of, deletion of, or addition to attitudes and behaviors

existing in a person, group, organization or larger system."

Hersey and Blanchard (1982) referred to one of the classical works on change by Kurt

Lewin (1947). Lewin identified three phases of the change process: unfreezing, changing,

and refreezing. The purpose of the unfreezing stage is to motivate and make the individual or

group receptive to the change. Unfreezing is the breaking down of the mores, customs, and

traditions of individuals so that they might be already to accept new options.

The second stage, changing, occurs once the individuals have become motivated to

change and are ready to be provided with the new expectations and behaviors. Lewin related

that this process is likely to occur by one of two means: identification or internalization.









30

When individuals are provided with role models from whom they may learn the new behavior

patterns, this is called the identification method of changing. The individuals learn to emulate

the behavior of the model. With internalization, the individuals learn to change by adapting

to new behaviors that are demanded of them if they are to operate successfully in the new

environment. This method involves the influence of personal coping behaviors and skills.

Hersey and Blanchard (1982) related that the processes of identification and internalization are

not mutually exclusive courses of action, but constructive change efforts can be generated as a

result of combining the two into an effective strategy for change.

Refreezing is the process through which the newly acquired behavior becomes

integrated as patterned behavior into the individual's character. For new behavior to be

maintained it must be learned and incorporated. When this does not happen, old behaviors or

patterns re-emerge. To keep new behaviors from diminishing, a pattern of reinforcement

must occur. Hersey and Blanchard (1982) pointed out that two types of reinforcement can

occur, continuous and intermittent. Individuals learn faster with continuous reinforcement but

return to old patterns quicker once it is removed. With intermittent reinforcement, the

extinction of new behaviors occurs much slower (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982).

Drawing on the work of Ronald Havelock, Lindquist described four different change

strategies that lead organizations and the people in them to change (Bricketto, 1989). These

four strategies are rational planning, social interaction, human problem solving, and political

approaches. Lindquist (1978) placed the four models within an overall change strategy

emphasis model. The model describes three major parts to a planned change: (a) creating the

change message, (b) communicating the change message, and (c) receiving and acting upon

the change message. Lindquist placed the rational planning model within the change emphasis

of creating the change message. He placed the social interaction model within the change









31

emphasis area of communicating the change message and both the human problem solving and

political approaches within the receiving and acting upon the change message area.

The rational planning model involves the concept that if the research is correct and the

development is sound, then the change will sell itself. He also described this as rational

change, assuming the view that humans and organizations are basically rational in their

thinking and when presented with the rational facts and benefits, will rationally accept the

change.

The foundation for the social interaction model is the perception that humans live and

interact in a social environment with its attendant networks of other humans. This approach

assumes that changes and the willingness to accept them is determined by relationships and

interactions with other people. These social networks are also influenced by opinion leaders:

individuals or organizations to whom others turn for advice (Bricketto, 1989).

The human problem solving model is associated with the psychological aspects

humans associate with change. The normal resistance to change cannot be overlooked in

developing change tactics. These resistance factors may come from fears, prejudices, distrust,

and various anxieties. To overcome these psychological factors a sense of openness,

collaboration, and consensus-seeking techniques must be employed (Bricketto, 1989).

The political approach views the components of building coalitions among influential

persons and groups as an effective method of bringing about change. Once these coalitions

are in place, the political approach seeks to generate an authoritative decision that will require

others to comply with the change desired. Characteristics of this approach are negotiation,

compromise, and influential gatekeepers.

Bennis, Benne, and Chin (1985, p. 22) defined planned changes as those attempts at

changes that are "conscious, deliberate, and intended, at least on the part of one or more










agents related to the change attempt". Bennis, Benne, and Chin defined three categories of

change strategies: (a) empirical-rational, (b) normative-re-educative, and (c) power-coercive.

The empirical-rational strategy is based on the premise that reason is the basis for

action. Because they are rational, people will embrace a change when it is evident that it is in

their best interest to do so. The evidence needed to reach these rational decisions are based

on facts and factual information.

In the normative-re-educative change strategies, the main belief is that the motivation

for people to change occurs internally. Socially, the change activity is collective. On the

individual level, values, habits, and beliefs supply the motivation. Basic to the empirical-re-

educative strategies is the involvement of a change agent. The role of the agent is to

intercede and incorporate change into the workings of the system to be changed, be it

institution or individual.

The acquisition and use of power and its components make the power-coercive set of

strategies different from the other two. According to Bennis, Benne, and Chin (1985) these

strategies usually have as their basis political and economic sanctions of power. With the

power-coercive strategies, the use of political or economic power is used to attempt to create

the desired change.

Foster (1986) described five models of change. In his terms, these models are

representative of the single context for organizational change; however, in reality change

programs and processes of change borrow, to some degree, from each of the models.

The five models are (a) rational-managerial, (b) personal-therapeutic, (c) organic-systems,

(d) political-economic, and (e) symbolic and cultural aspects.

The rational-managerial strategy is based on the assumption that the organization is

made up of rational individuals; that these individuals will be convinced by evidence










concerning the need for change; and that the change can be accomplished via a program that

is sequential and data based. This model is based on the use of a change agent to act as the

initiator who has gathered the data on the changes necessary to improve the situation and

presents it to the organization, who in turn evaluates and incorporates it. The failure of this

model as an exclusive approach is in the fact that although people are often rational about

many things, they are not rational about all things.

The personal-therapeutic approach is viewed by Foster as not "technically" a model of

organizational change; however, because of its frequent appearance in the literature, he

believed that it warrants closer attention and discussion. The personal-therapeutic approach is

based on the premise that major change first begins with the individual. According to this

model, change begins with some significant change in the individuals that make up an

organization. This model's focus on the change within individuals includes such topic areas

as self-concept, personality, trust development, values clarification, and conflict management.

Foster (1986) described the work of Lewin (1951) as a classic example of the personal-

therapeutic change model. In this reference he referred to Lewin's change model of

unfreezing, changing, and refreezing.

The third model described by Foster (1986) is organic-systems. This model is based

on two basic premises: (a) organizations are similar to organic systems in that they grow,

develop, change, and die, and (b) organizations are systems composed of interrelated and

interdependent subsystems. This model supports the basic premises of the largest movement

to implement change in organizations: organizational development (Foster, 1986).

Organizational development examines three levels of activity within an organization: the

interpersonal, the subsystem, and the organization as a unit. Though organizational

development, and hence the organic-systems model, is similar in concept to the rational-









34

managerial approach and the personal-therapeutic model, it is different. The organic-systems

model emphasizes process, whereas the rational-managerial model stresses programs or

products, and organic-systems has a more organizational prospective as opposed to the

individual orientation displayed by the personal-therapeutic model.

The fourth model, political-economic, characterizes the role of politics and economics

as the driving force behind change in an organization. This model has four distinguishing

characteristics. First, this model represents the organization as a political system having both

real and symbolic resources. Real resources are tangible items such as structure, materials,

and salaries, while the symbolic resources are those items that are relatively intangible such as

power, status, and prestige. Secondly, the political-economic model depicts the individuals in

the organization as political actors each having a personal self-interest at stake. A third

characteristic is that coalitions form within organizations, and these coalitions develop

strategies for achieving control of certain resources. Lastly, the political-economic model

represents the organization as existing within a political environment where conflict is an

integral component. In this model, change occurs through the manipulation of the of the

economic and political processes. This model would not hold that process interventions,

rational strategies, or personal change would influence change in the organization, but rather

the orchestration of rewards, changes in supply and demand, and the influence of coalition

groups within the organization. Change is seen as coming as the result of coalitions,

negotiations, and bargaining.

The last model of change described by Foster is the symbolic-cultural aspects. In this

model the cultural aspects of an organization are recognized as often controlling or having

broad influence on change within the organization. These cultural aspects are such things as

myths, symbols, and rituals. Change is viewed as being accomplished by effecting change in

these cultural aspects.










Management Functions

The study of management as a science is generally seen as beginning with the work,

published in 1911, of Frederick W. Taylor (Koontz & O'Donnell, 1976, pp. 34-36). Taylor

developed the theory of "Scientific Management" around the idea that administration and

management techniques could be studied just like any other science. Principles of

management could be developed that were separated from human emotion and involvement

(Koontz & O'Donnell, 1976. pp. 34-36, Longenecker, 1977). To develop his theory, Taylor

conducted time and motion studies of various tasks being performed in industry and business,

seeking to discover the "one best way" of performing that task. Taylor believed that much

was wasted due to inefficiency of both labor and management (Koontz & O'Donnell, 1976,

pp. 34-37, Longenecker, 1977). The fundamental principles of Taylor were (Koontz &

O'Donnell, 1976, pp. 34-37)

1. Replacing rules of thumb with science (organized
knowledge).
2. Obtaining harmony in group action, rather than
discord.
3. Achieving cooperation of human beings, rather than
chaotic individualism.
4. Working for maximum output, rather than restricted
output.
5. Developing all workers to fullest extent for their
own and companies' good.

Much of the work concerned with the common or universal functional areas of

management revealed in the literature is based upon the work of Henri Fayol, considered to

be the father of modern management theory (Koontz & O'Donnell, 1976). Fayol developed

fourteen general principles of management that he derived from his observations and

experiences and eventually established his functional elements of management. From his

observations, Fayol felt that all activities of a given enterprise could be grouped into six basic

categories: "(1) technical (production), (2) commercial (buying, selling, and exchange),








36

(3) financial (search for and optimal use of capital), (4) security (protection of property), (5)

accounting (including statistics), and (6) managerial (planning, organizing, command,

coordination, and control)" (Koontz & O'Donnell, 1976, pp. 38-42).

Because he devoted most of his writings to the sixth category of management, he later

published his fourteen general principles of management. These are as follows:

1. Division of work
2. Authority and responsibility
3. Discipline
4. Unity of command
5. Unity of direction
6. Subordination of individual to general
interest
7. Remuneration
8. Centralization
9. Scaler chain chain of managerial command
10. Order
11. Equity
12. Stability of tenure
13. Imitation
14. Esprit de corps

Fayol believed that these principles applied to any organization, no matter the focus

of that organization. These were essentially universal principles (Longenecker, 1977). From

these principles, Fayol developed his functional elements of management. The functional

elements described by him were planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and

controlling. Again, Fayol considered these functions to be universal functions that apply not

only to business operations but also to political, religious, educational, military, and other

enterprises (Koontz & O'Donnell, 1976. pp. 37-42). Another early writer on the functions

of a manager was Luther Gulick. Gulick supported the work of Fayol by developing and

publishing his own descriptive list of managerial functions that was modeled along the same

lines as Fayol's (Mintzberg, 1973). Gulick's model was called POSDCORB, an acronym

developed from the first letter of each of the eight functions. Gulick described POSDCORB

in this manner:










What is the work of the chief executive? What does he do?
The answer is POSDCORB.

POSDCORB is, of course, a made-up word designed to call attention
to the various functional elements of the work of a chief executive
because "administration" and "management" have lost all specific
content. POSDCORB is made up of the initials and stands for the
following activities:

Planning, that is working out in broad outline the things that need to
be done and the methods for doing them to accomplish the purpose set
for the enterprise;

Organizing, that is the establishment of the formal structure of
authority through which the work subdivisions are arranged, defined
and coordinated for the defined objective;

Staffing, that is the whole personnel function of bringing in and
training the staff and maintaining favorable conditions of work;

Directing, that is the continuous task of making decisions and
embodying them in specific and general orders and instruction and
serving as the leader of the enterprise;

Coordinating, that is the all important duty of interrelating the various
parts of the work;

Reporting, that is keeping those to whom the executive is responsible
informed as to what is going on, which thus includes keeping himself
and his subordinates informed through records, research and
inspection;

Budgeting, with all that goes with budgeting in the form of fiscal
planning, accounting and control.

This statement of work of a chief executive is adapted from the
functional analysis elaborated by Henri Fayol in his "Industrial and
General Administration." It is believed that those who know
administration intimately will find in this analysis a valid and helpful
pattern into which can be fitted each of the major activities and duties
of any chief executive (Gulick and Urwick, 1937: 13). (Mintzberg,
1973, pp. 8-11)


Mintzberg (1973) pointed out that POSDCORB is still used today and in fact

continues in a dominant role in the literature. However, Mintzberg did not fully support

Fayol's descriptions nor did he support the descriptions of the POSDCORB model











(Mintzberg, (1973). He believed that the functional models did not adequately describe the

roles of a manager; therefore, he developed and published his own set of ten roles of a

manager as opposed to functions of a manager. His ten roles were assembled into three

primary groups labeled interpersonal roles, informational roles, and decisional roles.

Mintzberg's ten roles within groups are described by Longenecker (1977, pp. 30-31)

as follows:

Interpersonal Roles

1. Figurehead As symbolic head of an organization, the manager
must perform duties of a legal or ceremonial nature.

2. Leader In performing this widely recognized role, the manager
guides and motivates subordinates.

3. Liaison This role is concerned primarily with horizontal
relationships. The manager establishes a web of external
relationships, getting to know his or her peers and building a
relationship of mutual assistance.

Informational Roles

1. Monitor The manager receives information and analysis related to
both operations and external events. Keeping up with trends and
learning about new ideas also fall within this area.

2. Disseminator This role entails the transmission of information
received from outside to members of the organization.

3. Spokesman The manager speaks on behalf of the organization and
transmits information out to the organizational environment.

Decisional Roles

1. Entrepreneur In initiating change, the manager performs an
entrepreneurial role.

2. Disturbance handler Unexpected problems or disturbances require
the manager to play a disturbance-handler role.

3. Resource Allocator In the resource-allocator role, a manager
determines the distribution of organizational resources such as money,
time, and equipment.








39

4. Negotiator As a negotiator, a manager bargains with customers or
other outsiders or insiders.


Contemporary authors have continued to divide managerial functions into categories

based on the work of the early authors (Trewatha and Newport, 1979). A four function

model is supported in the literature by several authors (Gibson et al, 1985; Koontz &

O'Donnell, 1976; Longenecker, 1977; Mescon et al, 1981; Trewatha & Newport, 1979). In

a four functional elements of management model, the elements would be planning, organizing,

leading, and controlling.

Individually defined, the elements of this functional model are as follows:

Planning. This function consists of determining what should be done in the future.

It consists of determining the goals, objectives, policies, procedures, and other plans needed

to achieve the purposes of the organization.

Organizing. This function includes all managerial activities that are taken to translate

the required planned activities into a structure of tasks and authority.

Leading. This function is also called influencing, motivating, or directing. The

leading function of a manager includes guiding, teaching, and supervising subordinates. It

also means issuing orders and instructions so that tasks are accomplished. It carries the

responsibility for developing the abilities of the staff to their maximum potential by directing,

teaching, and coaching them effectively.

Controlling. The managerial function of controlling involves those activities that are

necessary to make certain that objectives are achieved as planned. Controlling means to

determine whether or not plans are being met; whether or not progress is being made toward

objectives; and to act, if necessary, to correct deviations and shortcomings.









40

Chapter Summary

This chapter presented an overview of the literature related to Nutt's Model and

research, planned change and implementation, and the development of functional areas of

management. The next chapter describes the methodology and design developed and used to

facilitate the study.















CHAPTER III
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY


Research Objective

The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceived applicability of change

tactics, as represented by Nutt's model of four change implementation tactics, by three groups

of student affairs staff in the implementation of planned change in the administration of

college and university student housing operations. This study examined the perceptions of

chief student affairs officers, chief housing officers, and professional level members of the

housing staff immediately subordinate to the chief housing officer.

This study is designed to test the following null hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1

There are no differences between the perceived appropriateness for applicability of the

four change implementation tactics by the three student affairs staff groups across the

functional areas of management as defined by a four function model.

Hypothesis 2

There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff in their

perceived appropriateness for the application of Nutt's intervention tactic to student housing

administrative tasks structured across a four function model of management.










Hypothesis 3

There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff in their

perceived appropriateness for the application of Nutt's participation tactic to student housing

administrative tasks structured across a four function model of management.

Hypothesis 4

There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff in their

perceived appropriateness for the application of Nutt's persuasion tactic to student housing

administrative tasks structured across a four function model of management.

Hypothesis 5

There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff in their

perceived appropriateness for the application of Nutt's edict tactic to student housing

administrative tasks structured across a four function model of management.

Hypothesis 6

There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff in regard to

their perceived appropriateness for the application of the intervention implementation tactic to

housing administrative tasks within the four functional areas of management.

Hypothesis 7

There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff in regard to

their perceived appropriateness for the application of the participation implementation tactic to

housing administrative tasks within the four functional areas of management.

Hypothesis 8

There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff in regard to

their perceived appropriateness for the application of the persuasion implementation tactic to

housing administrative tasks within the four functional areas of management.










Hypothesis 9

There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff in regard to

their perceived appropriateness for the application of the edict implementation tactic to

housing administrative tasks within the four functional areas of management.

Research Population and Sample

The population for this study consisted of all the chief student affairs officers, chief

housing officers, and subordinate housing officers at public four-year colleges and

universities. The population sample for the study was developed by a stratified random

selection of 100 respondents for each of the three student affairs staff groups, creating a total

sample population of 300. The samples were drawn from all public four year institutions that

were United States members of the Association of College and University Officers -

International (ACUHO-I) and that housed 2000 single students or more in their on-campus

facilities. ACUHO-I is an international organization designed to represent, foster, develop,

promote, and improve the field of college and university housing administration. It has a total

international membership of nearly 700 schools, representing public, private, religious, and

proprietary institutions of both the 2- and 4-year type. The total number of institutions

qualifying as the accessible population was 178, according to the 1989 ACUHO-I Directory

(Sautter, 1989). Any institution that did not have all three groups of student affairs staff was

eliminated from the study. The 178 qualifying institutions were arranged in alphabetical order

by state and then numbered in order from 1 to 178. Three separate computer generated

random number series were produced and applied to the institutional list of 178 qualifying

schools. This produced three separately drawn groups from the same number of qualifying

institutions. The three groups, each drawn randomly, were the chief student affairs officer,

the chief housing officer, and professional members of the housing/residence life staff









44

immediately subordinate to the chief housing officer. Subordinate housing officers selected as

respondents for the study were determined based on the job title listed in the 1989 ACUHO-I

Directory in the order of (a) associate director, or equivalent title, (b) assistant director, or

equivalent title, and (c) coordinator, or equivalent title. In cases of multiple holders of

similar titles, a random selection was initiated to select the respondent.

Development of the Instrument

The intent of this study was to examine the preferred tactics of the three groups of

student affairs staff using Nutt's implementation tactics across the range of managerial tasks

performed by chief housing officers. To develop the instrumentation, a structure or basis for

the managerial functions of a chief housing officer was needed. An examination of the

literature revealed numerous descriptions of the functions of management. Much of the work

described in the literature is based upon the work of Henri Fayol, considered to be the father

of modern management theory (Koontz & O'Donnell, 1976). Fayol developed fourteen

general principles of management that he derived from his observations and experiences.

From these fourteen principles he described the "functional elements" of management as

planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling. Fayol considered these

functions to be universal functions that apply not only to business operations but also to

political, religious, educational, military, and other enterprises (Koontz & O'Donnell, 1976).

For this study a four part description of the functions of management was used. The four

function models were supported in the literature by several authors (Gibson et al, 1985;

Koontz & O'Donnell, 1976; Longenecker, 1977; Mescon et al, 1981; Trewatha & Newport,

1979). The four functional elements of management used in for this study were planning,

organizing, leading, and controlling. These four functional elements provided a model that











was necessary to achieve a common framework of administrative or managerial tasks that

could be applied to the role of chief housing officer.

Individually defined, the elements of this functional model are as follows:

Planning. This function consists of determining what should be done in the future.

It consists of determining the goals, objectives, policies, procedures, and other plans needed

to achieve the purposes of the organization.

Organizing. This function includes all managerial activities that are taken to translate

the required planned activities into a structure of tasks and authority.

Leading. This function is also called influencing, motivating, or directing. The

leading function of a manager includes guiding, teaching, and supervising subordinates. It

also means issuing orders and instructions so that tasks are accomplished. It carries the

responsibility for developing the abilities of the staff to their maximum potential by directing,

teaching, and coaching them effectively.

Controlling. The managerial function of controlling involves those activities that are

necessary to make certain that objectives are achieved as planned. Controlling means to

determine whether or not plans are being met; whether or not progress is being made toward

objectives; and to act, if necessary, to correct deviations and shortcomings.

Development of Hypothetical Change Situations

Through a review of the literature and interviews with professional and academic

staff, five specific tasks or roles were identified for each of the functional areas of the

management model. The list of tasks and roles were submitted to a group of three individuals

recognized as having expertise in the field of student housing administration for review and

revision. The three tasks receiving the most favorable response from the three experts for

each of the four functional areas of management were used for this study. For each of the










three tasks identified for the four functional areas of the management model, a hypothetical

situation was developed and described. Each situation described a common predicament in

the student housing administrative setting that would require the implementation of change.

Once the twelve initial situations were developed and reviewed several times for basic

descriptive content and grammatical errors, a validation questionnaire was developed by the

author to confirm that each situation presented did indeed adequately represent the functional

management area that it was intended to represent. A validation survey (Appendix B) was

sent to four Directors of Housing/Residence Life. Each of the hypothetical situations

received unanimous confirmation from the respondents along with several suggested wording

revisions for clarity, which were incorporated. Each of the twelve descriptive situations were

then subjected to repeated reviews and revisions by faculty and professional staff associated

with student housing for final content and grammatical analysis.

Validation of Responses to Hypothetical Change Situations

Following each hypothetical change situation were four response choices. The four

possible choices reflected Nutt's model of four change implementation tactics: intervention,

edict, persuasion, and participation. Drawing on Nutt's research (Nutt, 1986) a description of

each tactic was developed summarizing that tactic into a relatively short paragraph with

terminology characteristic to the role of the chief housing officer. These four tactics and the

detailed, descriptive paragraphs were included in the survey instrument as a guide to

respondents as to the intended meaning of the four implementation tactics. The four

summaries were presented to a panel of three expert judges for review (Appendix D). The

judges reviewed the summarized descriptions to determine if the descriptions accurately

represented Nutt's original model content. A rewrite of the edict tactic was suggested along

with other minor changes or expansions of the other three. Revisions were completed, re-









47

reviewed and validated. The final descriptive paragraphs for the four change tactics were as

follows:

Intervention. The chief housing officer (CHO) becomes actively involved in serving

as sponsor of the change by establishing new goals and norms, applying these to the current

situation, and identifying the current performance or situational shortcomings. He/she invests

time and energy showing other staff the value of the planned change by demonstrating

possible improvements or the feasibility of improving practices. Once other staff are

adequately informed of the benefits of the planned change, he/she implements the change and

follows-up by demonstrating the improvements) in performance or the situation.

Edict. The chief housing officer (CHO), as sponsor of the planned change, identifies

the needs and opportunities. He/she weighs the alternatives and selects the necessary steps to

accomplish the change. The CHO retains complete control of the development and

implementation of the needed change. Little or no input is sought or desired from others on

the staff. He/she issues directives that stipulate the changes) to be initiated. Compliance

with the change is anticipated and expected. CHO monitors change for performance or

situation improvementss.

Persuasion. The chief housing officer (CHO), as sponsor of the change, identifies

the needs and/or opportunities. He/she then turns control of the development of the change

process over to experts, such as paid consultants or others outside of the housing

organization, and in general, remains apart from direct involvement in the change process.

The experts present products, ideas, procedures, etc., for approval, and attempt to sell the

options that seem best to other staff involved. The CHO encourages sales pitches from

interested parties so that he/she and/or staff can weigh imperatives to act. The CHO

implements the changes as recommended by the experts and monitors performance or

situation improvementss.










Participation. The chief housing officer (CHO), as sponsor of the planned change,

initiates the process by identifying the needs and/or opportunities. He/she delegates

substantial responsibility for guiding change development processes to task forces consisting

of appropriate staff and/or students, providing them with expectations and constraints. The

Task Forces develop recommendations, and the recommendations are then implemented by the

CHO and monitored for performance or situation improvementss.

Respondents were asked to indicate their degree of preferred application of each

change implementation tactic as an approach to the implementation of the change they deemed

necessary for the situation presented. On the survey following each hypothetical change

situation, respondents rated their preference for each tactic on a one (1) to five (5) scale, with

1 representing a "never applicable" approach and 5 indicating an "always applicable"

approach.

Pilot Study Using the Instrument

After the validations were completed a pilot study was conducted. A draft instrument

design was presented to members of the professional staff of the Division of Housing at the

University of Florida, including the Director of Housing. These individuals were asked to

determine the length of time required for completion of the instrument, to make general

observation and comments about the instrument, and to recommend changes or improvements

in the instructions, content, responses, readability and general layout of the instrument.

Responses from the staff were considered when the final design of the instrument was

developed. As a result of the pilot study, several grammatical, wording, and clerical errors

were corrected. No content or response items were adjusted.

Design and Printing of the Instrument

An instrument titled "A Study of Change Implementation Tactics in Student Housing











Management" (Appendix I) was designed by the writer. The instrument consisted of a title

page and demographic data followed by a page providing directions on the proper completion

of the survey. The directions page provided a written explanation of the steps each

respondent was to follow in completing the instrument. This was followed by two examples

of properly scored response sections, visually demonstrating the appropriate method of

responding to each hypothetical change situation. The directions page was followed by a page

providing the written paragraphs describing the four response choices. One paragraph each

described Nutt's four change implementation tactics of intervention, edict, persuasion, and

participation. Respondents were encouraged to frequently refer to the descriptive paragraphs

during the completion of the survey. The remaining pages presented the twelve descriptive

change situations, with each situation being followed by a response section specifically for

that situation.

The survey original was printed using a laser printer to assure clean readability and

sharp graphics. Reproduction was accomplished through high quality duplication into a

booklet type format.

Administration of the Instrument

The instrument was mailed to the three groups of student affairs officers from the

institutions selected for the study. There were a total of 100 respondents selected for each

group of student affairs officers from 178 institutions included in the study. A letter

(Appendix F) from James L. Wattenbarger, Director of the Institute of Higher Education at

the University of Florida, and James C. Grimm, Director of Housing at the University of

Florida and former President of the Association of College and University Housing Officers -

International, and an endorsement from the Research and Information Committee of ACUHO-

I were included with the survey mailed to housing staff. A letter of endorsement (Appendix










G) from C. Arthur Sandeen, Vice President for Student Affairs at the University of Florida,

was substituted for the letter from James C. Grimm in those surveys mailed to chief student

affairs officers. The letters described the nature of the study and the need to support the

research. Self-addressed, stamped, return envelopes were provided to facilitate the return of

the survey. Respondents were given a specific target date by which the instrument should be

returned. A follow-up letter (Appendix H) was sent approximately three weeks later to those

student affairs officers who had failed to respond by the initial deadline, urging participation

and support for the research. Due to printing and mailing costs, a duplicate instrument was

not included with the follow-up letter but rather respondents were instructed to call or write if

they required additional materials. An additional two weeks were allowed for further

responses. During the initial and follow-up mailings, respondents were assured of the

confidentiality of their responses.

Treatment of the Data

Information obtained from the descriptive data page provided specific facts about the

respondents, their institutions, and the housing/residence life operation on their campuses.

The demographic information was collected to obtain data that may be helpful for future

research and is presented in summary form in Appendix J.

The responses to the four change implementation tactics across the twelve hypothetical

change situations provided a measure of the perceived overall appropriateness of each of the

tactics, the perceived appropriateness of each of the tactics within a specific functional

management area, and the differences among the three levels of student affairs staff as to their

perceived appropriateness of each of the tactics in total, and in relation to functional

management areas.








51

The data generated by the responses to the survey instrument were analyzed using the

Statistical Analysis System (SAS). Results of these analyses provided the necessary

information for this study.

The survey instruments were coded prior to mailing to assure proper categorization of

results once returned. All returned surveys were screened for completeness and usability.

Data from each useable survey was transferred to an appropriately structured database on a

personal computer. Once all surveys were returned and properly logged into the database

structure, the data was transferred to a mainframe computer system, using a direct data link

over a telephone line, for analysis by the SAS computer program.

The data were subjected to analysis by one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA)

procedures under the general linear model (GLM) structure and simple t-tests. The GLM

structure within SAS was appropriate for use with unbalanced datasets as was the case with

the data from the surveys. One-way ANOVA was used to analyze all hypotheses except

hypothesis 1. For hypothesis 1, a series of simple t-tests were conducted to compare each

tactic with each of the other tactics across all management functions, unrelated to

administrative group. All hypotheses were tested with the level for statistical significance set

at .05. If the probability value was .05 or less, the null hypothesis was rejected. Pairwise

comparisons were made and confirmed by the Bonferroni procedure to identify significant

differences between pairs of administrative groups. For the Bonferroni procedure, the alpha

level was adjusted to .017 to reflect the familywise alpha level (.05) divided by the number of

comparisons made, which was three (3).








52

Chapter Summary

This chapter provided an overview of the development, design, and methodology of this

study. The outline consists of (a) research objective, (b) research population and sample, (c)

development of the instrument, (d) design and printing of the instrument, (e) administration of

the instrument, and (f) treatment of the data. Chapter IV presents the results and the analysis

of the data.















CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA


The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceived appropriateness of change

tactics, as represented by Nutt's model of four change implementation tactics, by three groups

of student affairs staff in the implementation of planned change in the administration of

college and university student housing operations. The three groups of student affairs staff

were chief student affairs officers, chief housing officers, and professional level members of

the housing staff.

Research Population and Sample

The population for this study consisted of all the chief student affairs officers, chief

housing officers, and subordinate housing officers at public four-year colleges and

universities. The population sample for the study was developed by a stratified random

selection of 100 respondents for each of the three student affairs staff groups, creating a total

sample population of 300. The samples were drawn from all public four year institutions that

were United States members of the Association of College and University Officers-

International (ACUHO-I) and that housed 2000 single students or more in their on-campus

facilities. ACUHO-I is an international organization designed to represent, foster, develop,

promote, and improve the field of college and university housing administration. It has a total

international membership of nearly 700 schools, representing both 2- and 4-year public,

private, religious, and proprietary institutions. The total number of institutions qualifying as

the accessible population was 178, according to the 1989 ACUHO-I Directory (Sautter,










1989). Any institution that did not have all three groups of student affairs staff was

eliminated from the study. The 178 qualifying institutions were arranged in alphabetical order

by state and then numbered in order from 1 to 178. Three separate computer generated

random number series were produced and applied to the institutional list of 178 qualifying

schools. This produced three separately drawn groups from the same number of qualifying

institutions. The three groups, each drawn randomly, were the chief student affairs officer,

the chief housing officer, and professional members of the housing/residence life staff

immediately subordinate to the chief housing officer. Subordinate housing officers selected as

respondents for the study were determined based on the job title listed in the 1989 ACUHO-I

Directory in the order of (a) associate director, or equivalent title, (b) assistant director, or

equivalent title, and (c) coordinator, or equivalent title. In cases of multiple holders of

similar titles, a random selection was initiated to select one respondent.

Of the 300 student affairs staff surveyed, there were a total of 166 (55.3%) returns.

Of that total, eleven instruments were rejected. Of the eleven rejected, seven surveys were

completed by inappropriate level of staff, two were returned too late to be included in the

analysis, and two were returned improperly completed. The total useable return was 155

(51.7%). This number was used in the analysis. The return rate breakdown by student

affairs staff group revealed that the chief student affairs officers' response total was 59

(19.7%), the chief housing officers' response total was 54 (18.0%), and the housing staff

responded with a total of 53 (17.7%) of the total returns.

Analyses of the Data

In this section the process that was used to test the hypotheses stated in Chapter 1 is

discussed. In addition, an overview of the procedures, and a specific section on each

hypothesis, is presented.










The instrument used, "A Study of Change Implementation in Student Housing

Management" (Appendix I), included 12 descriptive situations of management situations

common to campus student housing. The 12 situations were grouped into four sections

representing specific management tasks. Each situation was followed by a response section in

which four types of change implementation tactics were listed. These tactics reflected the

change implementation tactics described by Nutt. Each respondent was asked to rate each

tactic in terms of its perceived applicability to the management situation that was presented.

The respondents were asked to rate each tactic on a one (never applicable) to five (always

applicable) scale. With this scale, the closer the mean score for the tactic was to five, the

more applicable the tactic was perceived to be to managerial situations; and the closer the

mean score of the tactic was to one, the less applicable it was perceived to be.

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the general linear model (GLM) for

unbalanced data was used to test eight of the hypotheses. A simple t-test was used to test

hypothesis 1. These analyses allowed the researcher to compare the means of the three

groups involved in the study. The procedure involved the computation of an F-value or T-

value for each analysis along with the probability of its occurrence under the null hypothesis.

The level of statistical significance for this study was set at .05. To determine the acceptance

or rejection of the null hypothesis, the calculated probability was compared to the .05 level of

significance. If the probability value was less than .05, the null hypothesis was rejected. If

the probability value calculated was greater than the .05 level, the null hypothesis was

retained.

Several different GLM analyses were used as well as simple t-tests. To test for

differences among the three levels of student affairs staff, each of the four change tactics was

tested using each of them as a dependent variable. Lastly, each of the four tactics was tested,








56

within the four functional areas of management, as dependent variables for differences among

the three levels of student affairs staff. The initial analysis was made to determine if

differences existed between the selection of each of the four change implementation tactics.

For all the analyses, except for hypothesis 1, a separate follow-up procedure was

performed to identify specific pair differences. The Bonferroni procedure was performed on

all data comparisons. In accordance with the Bonferroni procedure, the significance level set

for the familywise comparison was divided by the number of pairwise comparisons. Because

three pairwise comparisons were made, the overall alpha level of .05 was divided by three,

yielding a significance level for the Bonferroni comparisons of .017. If the means, when

compared, were different at the .017 level of significance, it was determined that a difference

did exist.

Overall Application of the Change Implementation Tactics

The first step in the analyses was to determine if there were differences in the

application of the change implementation tactics by the administrative groups as a whole. The

analysis was designed to determine if there was differentiation between the tactics by the

student affairs groups in their reported perception for the application of the tactics or if all the

tactics were viewed equally in the perception by the respondents for their applicability to

change situations. A series of simple t-tests were conducted to determine if any significant

differences existed in the perceived applicability of the four change implementation tactics,

unrelated to the specific administrative group, but related to the other implementation tactics.

The tests compared each tactic with each of the other tactics across all of the management

function areas. This series of procedures was designed to test hypothesis 1.











Hypothesis 1. There are no differences between the perceived appropriateness for

applicability of the four change implementation tactics by the three student affairs staff groups

across the functional areas of management as defined by a four function model.

Table 4-1 provides a summary of the analysis. Shown in the table are the resulting

T-values and p-values for each of the comparisons. In all comparisons, each implementation

tactic was significantly different from the other tactics in its application to change situations.

Because the probability in each comparison of obtaining the resulting T-values was less than

.05 level of significance, the null hypothesis was rejected for all comparisons. As indicated,

each change implementation tactic was used independently to react to change situations. The

ratings given to each of the four tactics by the respondents indicate that each tactic was

perceived to be an independent approach to the implementation of change.





Table 4-1.

Cross-Comparison of the Implementation Tactics Using a Simple t-Test for Significance


Intervention Tactic compared to

Tactic N Mean SD T-Value Probability Implications

Edict 155 2.304 0.083 18.55 0.0001 significant
Persuasion 155 2.866 0.099 9.88 0.0001 significant
Participation 155 4.125 0.069 4.00 0.0001 significant











Table 4-1. (cont.)


Edict Tactic compared to

Tactic N Mean SD T-Value Probability Implications


Intervention 155 3.847 0.083 18.55 0.0001 significant

Persuasion 155 2.866 0.097 5.79 0.0001 significant

Participation 155 4.125 0.100 18.14 0.0001 significant



Persuasion Tactic compared to

Tactic N Mean SD T-Value Probability Implications


Intervention 155 3.847 0.099 9.88 0.0001 significant

Edict 155 2.304 0.097 5.79 0.0001 significant

Participation 155 4.125 0.078 16.06 0.0001 significant



Participation Tactic compared to

Tactic N Mean SD T-Value Probability Implications


Intervention 155 3.847 0.069 4.00 0.0001 significant

Edict 155 2.304 0.100 18.14 0.0001 significant

Persuasion 155 2.866 0.078 16.06 0.0001 significant


Intervention Tactic for Change Implementation

The next step in the analysis was to determine if differences existed among student

affairs administrators in their perceived appropriateness for the application of the separate

implementation tactics. The analyses began with the intervention tactic for change

implementation. This tactic was analyzed by the GLM analysis of variance procedure using









59

intervention as the dependent variable and administrative position as the independent variable.

The analysis was designed to test hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 2. There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff

in their perceived appropriateness for the application of Nutt's intervention tactic to student

housing administrative tasks structured across a four function model of management.

Table 4-2 provides a summary of this analysis. As shown in table 4-2, the F-value

for the independent variable of administrative position was 1.68. The probability of obtaining

this F-value is 0.1899. Because the probability is greater than the .05 level of significance,

the null hypothesis was not rejected. There is no statistically significant difference among the

three student affairs staff groups in their perceived appropriateness for the application of the

intervention tactic for planned change.




Table 4-2.

Analysis of Variance for the Application of the Intervention Tactic Across Student Affairs
Groups



Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications
Chief Student Affairs 50 3.708
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 3.857
Housing Professional Staff 52 3.971
0.743 1.68 0.1899 non-significant










Participation Tactic for Change Implementation

The GLM analysis of variance test was used to determine if significant differences

existed among student affairs administrators in their perceived appropriateness for the

application of the participation tactic for change implementation. The analysis was conducted

using the participation tactic as the dependent variable and administrative position as the

independent variable. The analysis was designed to test hypothesis 3.

Hypothesis 3. There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff

in their perceived appropriateness for the application of Nutt's participation tactic to student

housing administrative tasks structured across a four function model of management.

The results of the analysis of the participation tactic for change implementation are

detailed in Table 4-3. The resulting F-value was 2.00 with the probability of obtaining this

value as 0.1400. Because the probability is greater than the .05 level of significance, the null

hypothesis was not rejected. There is no statistically significant difference among the three

student affairs staff groups in their perceived appropriateness for the application of the

participation tactic for planned change.











Table 4-3.

Analysis of Variance for the Application of the Participation Tactic across Student Affairs
Groups


Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications
Chief Student Affairs 50 4.148
Officers
Chief Housing Officers 53 4.242
Housing Professional Staff 52 3.982

0.672 2.00 0.1400 non-significant



Persuasion Tactic for Change Implementation

The GLM analysis of variance test was used to determine if significant differences

existed among student affairs administrators in their perceived appropriateness for the

application of the persuasion tactic for change implementation. The analysis was conducted

using the persuasion tactic as the dependent variable and administrative position as the

independent variable. The analysis was designed to test hypothesis 4.

Hypothesis 4. There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff

in their perceived appropriateness for the application of Nutt's persuasion tactic to student

housing administrative tasks structured across a four function model of management.

The results of the analysis of the persuasion tactic for change implementation are

detailed in Table 4-4. The resulting F-value was 7.86 with the probability of obtaining this

value as 0.0006. Because the probability is less than the .05 level of significance, the null

hypothesis was rejected. There is a statistically significant difference among the three student

affairs staff groups in their perceived appropriateness for the application of the participation

tactic for planned change.











The Bonferonni procedure was conducted as a follow-up test to determine where the

differences existed between the three groups as related to the persuasion tactic. As previously

detailed, because three pairwise comparisons are made, the alpha level for the results of the

Bonferroni test were set at .017. The test indicated significance between two of the three

groups. The results of the tests are shown in table 4-5.

The results show that there were no differences between the chief housing officers and

the professional housing staff. The chief student affairs officers, however, differ significantly

from both the chief housing officers and from the professional housing staff. The chief

student affairs officers showed a preference for a greater use of the persuasion tactic to

implement change than do the two other student affairs groups.





Table 4-4.

Analysis of Variance for the Application of the Persuasion Tactic Across Student Affairs
Groups



Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 3.252
Officers
Chief Housing Officers 53 2.695
Housing Professional Staff 52 2.670

0.887 7.86 0.0006 significant











Table 4-5.

Results of Bonferonni Pairwise Comparison t-tests for the Application of the Persuasion Tactic
by Student Affairs Groups



Comparison Groups N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 3.252
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 2.695

0.846 11.14 0.0012 significant






Comparison Groups N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 3.252
Officers

Housing Professional Staff 52 2.670

0.891 13.40 0.0004 significant






Comparison Groups N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Housing Officers 53 2.695

Housing Professional Staff 52 2.670

0.849 0.02 0.8800 non-significant


Edict Tactic for Change Implementation

The last of the four implementation tactics was tested using the GLM analysis of

variance procedure to determine if significant differences existed among student affairs

administrators in their perceived appropriateness for the application of the edict tactic for











change implementation. The analysis was conducted using the edict tactic as the dependent

variable and administrative position as the independent variable. The analysis was designed to

test hypothesis 5.

Hypothesis 5. There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff

in their perceived appropriateness for the application of Nutt's edict tactic to student housing

administrative tasks structured across a four function model of management.

The results of the analysis of the edict tactic for change implementation are detailed in

Table 4-6. The resulting F-value was 0.70 with the probability of obtaining this value as

0.5006. Because the probability is greater than the .05 level of significance, the null

hypothesis was not rejected. There is no statistically significant difference among the three

student affairs staff groups in their perceived appropriateness for the application of the edict

tactic for planned change.





Table 4-6.

Analysis of Variance for the Application of the Edict Tactic Across Student Affairs Groups



Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications
Chief Student Affairs 50 2.243
Officers
Chief Housing Officers 53 2.250
Housing Professional Staff 52 2.418
0.835 0.70 0.5006 non-significant










Implementation Tactics Within Management Areas

To test the next four hypotheses, a series of GLM analysis of variance procedures

were performed. Each of the four intervention tactics were tested within the four functional

areas of management whereas in the previous tests the tactics were tested across the four

management areas. The four management areas were planning, organizing, leading, and

controlling. The scores within each management area were treated as a separate set of data

with the tactic serving as the dependent variable and the student affairs administrative position

serving as the independent variable. Where the comparisons across all three groups were less

than or near to the .05 level of significance, separate pairwise comparisons were conducted

using the Bonferonni procedure to test for significance between specific groups. Alpha levels

for the Bonferroni test was set at .017.

Intervention Tactic within each Management Function

A GLM analysis of variance test was used to determine if significant differences

existed among student affairs administrators in their perceived appropriateness for the

application of the intervention tactic for change implementation within each of the specific

management areas of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling. The analysis was

conducted using the intervention tactic as the dependent variable and administrative position as

the independent variable. The analysis was designed to test hypothesis 6.

Hypothesis 6. There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff

in regard to their perceived appropriateness for the application of the intervention

implementation tactic to housing administrative tasks within the four functional areas of

management.

The results of the analysis of the intervention tactic for change implementation within

the four management areas of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling are detailed in











Table 4-7. The probability was greater than the .05 level of significance on the overall

comparison across all groups. Therefore, for the comparison across the three groups, the

null hypothesis was not rejected. There is no statistically significant difference indicated

across the three student affairs staff groups in their perceived appropriateness for the

application of the intervention tactic for planned change within any of the four functional

areas of management.



Table 4-7.

Analysis of Variance for the Application of the Intervention Tactic by Student Affairs Groups
Within Each Functional Area of Management


Planning

Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 3.640
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 3.755

Housing Professional Staff 52 3.955

0.848 1.87 0.1580 non-significant





Organizing

Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 3.720
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 4.063

Housing Professional Staff 52 4.019

0.845 2.53 0.0834 non-significant











Table 4-7. (cont.)


Leading

Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications
Chief Student Affairs 50 3.527
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 3.723

Housing Professional Staff 52 3.808

0.882 1.38 0.2563 non-significant




Controlling

Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications
Chief Student Affairs 50 3.947
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 3.887

Housing Professional Staff 52 4.102

0.871 0.87 0.4215 non-significant


Participation Tactic Within Each Management Function

A GLM analysis of variance test was used to determine if significant differences

existed among student affairs administrators in their perceived appropriateness for the

application of the participation tactic for change implementation within each of the specific

management areas. The analysis was conducted using the participation tactic as the dependent

variable and administrative position as the independent variable. The analysis was designed to

test hypothesis 7.










Hypothesis 7. There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff

in regard to their perceived appropriateness for the application of the participation

implementation tactic to housing administrative tasks within the four functional areas of

management.

The results of the analysis of the participation tactic for change implementation within

the four management areas of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling are detailed in

Table 4-8. The probability was greater than the .05 level of significance on the overall

comparison across all groups. Therefore, for the comparison across the three groups, the

null hypothesis was not rejected. There is no statistically significant difference indicated

across the three student affairs staff groups in their perceived appropriateness for the

application of the participation tactic for planned change within any of the four functional

areas of management.

However, because the p-value for the participation tactic within the controlling

management function was .0590, a pairwise comparison was made and confirmed by the

Bonferonni test for significance between pairs. Because of the three pairwise comparisons the

alpha level to accept or reject the hypothesis was set at .017. The test results are detailed in

table 4-9. The F-value for the comparison between the chief student affairs officers and the

chief housing officers was 1.10 with a p-value of .2973. Because the p-value was greater

than .017, the null hypothesis was not rejected for this comparison. The pairwise comparisons

between the chief student affairs officer and the professional housing staff produced an F-

value of 1.80 with a resulting p-value of .1835. Since the p-value was greater than .017, the

hypothesis was not rejected for this pair comparison. However, the comparison between the

chief housing officers and the professional housing staff revealed significance with an F-value

of 6.05 and a p-value of .0157. The hypothesis was rejected for this comparison.











Table 4-8.

Analysis of Variance for the Application of the Participation Tactic by Student Affairs Groups


Within Each Functional Area of Management


Planning

Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 4.353
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 4.358

Housing Professional Staff 52 4.218

0.719 0.58 0.5587 non-significant



Organizing

Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 4.007
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 4.113

Housing Professional Staff 52 3.750

0.816 2.77 0.0668 non-significant





Leading

Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 4.233
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 4.327

Housing Professional Staff 52 4.199

0.750 0.42 0.6601 non-significant











Table 4-8. (cont.)


Controlling

Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 4.000
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 4.170

Housing Professional Staff 52 3.763

0.877 2.90 0.0590 non-significant











Table 4-9.

Results of Bonferonni Pairwise Comparison t-tests for the Application of the Participation


Tactic by Student Affairs Groups Within the Management Function of Controlling


Comparison Groups N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 4.000
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 4.170

0.827 1.10 0.2973 non-significant



Comparison Groups N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 4.000
Officers

Housing Professional Staff 52 3.763

0.892 1.80 0.1835 non-significant



Comparison Groups N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Housing Officers 53 4.170

Housing Professional Staff 52 3.763

0.901 6.05 0.0157 significant


Persuasion Tactic Within Each Management Function

A GLM analysis of variance test was used to determine if significant differences

existed among student affairs administrators in their perceived appropriateness for the

application of the persuasion tactic for change implementation within each of the specific

management areas. The analysis was conducted using the persuasion tactic as the dependent

variable and administrative position as the independent variable. The analysis was designed to

test hypothesis 8.


A r










Hypothesis 8. There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff

in regard to their perceived appropriateness for the application of the persuasion

implementation tactic to housing administrative tasks within the four functional areas of

management.

The results of the analysis of the persuasion tactic for change implementation within

the four management areas of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling are detailed in

Table 4-10. The GLM analysis of variance tests revealed a probability of less than the .05

level of significance on three of the four overall comparison tests across all student affairs

groups. The three comparisons were within the functions of organizing, leading, and

controlling. The comparison within the organizing function revealed an F-value of 7.04 with

a p-value of 0.0013. An F-value of 7.82 and p-value of .0006 were found within the leading

function, and the controlling function comparison showed an F-value of 5.72 with a p-value

of .0042. Therefore, for these comparisons across the three student affairs groups, the null

hypothesis was rejected. The tests revealed a statistically significant difference across the

three student affairs staff groups in their perceived appropriateness for the application of the

persuasion tactic for planned change within these functional areas of management. Only

within the planning function was the null hypothesis not rejected for a comparison across all

the administrative groups. This comparison revealed an F-value of 3.05 with a p-value of

.0508.

Since the p-values for the persuasion tactic within the all four management functions

were less than or near .05, pairwise comparisons were made and confirmed by the Bonferonni

test for significance. The test results are detailed in table 4-11 through 4-13. The alpha level

for these pairwise comparisons was set at .017.








73

The pairwise comparisons within the organizing function showed significance between

two of the three pair comparisons. The comparison between the chief student affairs officers

and the chief housing officers generated an F-value of 11.28 with a p-value of 0.0012. This

results in a rejection of the null hypothesis for this comparison. The corresponding

comparison between the chief student affairs officers and the professional housing staff also

revealed a statistically significant difference with an F-value of 10.50 and a p-value of 0.0017.

The null hypothesis was rejected for this comparison. However, the comparison between the

chief housing officers and the professional level housing staff failed to produce any

statistically significant difference. The F-value for this comparison was 0.00 with a p-value

of 0.9469. For this comparison the null hypothesis was not rejected.

As with the previous set of comparisons, the comparisons within the leading

management function (Table 4-13) revealed significant differences between the chief student

affairs officers and both the chief housing officers and professional level housing staff. In

both of these comparisons the null hypothesis was rejected. The chief student affairs officers

and chief housing officers comparison revealed an F-value of 8.65 with a resulting p-value of

0.0042. The chief student affairs officers and professional housing staff comparison showed

an F-value of 14.08 with a p-value of 0.0003. The comparison between the chief housing

officers and the professional level housing staff revealed an F-value of 0.69 with a resulting

p-value of 0.4073. For this comparison there was no statistically significant difference;

therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected.

The final pairwise comparison for the persuasion tactic was within the controlling

management function (Table 4-13). As with the leading function, statistically significant

differences were shown to exist between the chief student affairs officers and both the chief

housing officers and professional level housing staff. The respective comparison results











revealed F-values of 6.04 and 12.25 with p-values of 0.0160 and 0.0007. For these two

comparisons the null hypothesis was rejected. The comparison between the chief housing

officers and the professional housing staff did not show a significant difference. The F-value

for the comparison was 0.55 and the p-value was 0.4603. For this comparison the null

hypothesis was not rejected.



Table 4-10.

Analysis of Variance for the Application of the Persuasion Tactic by Student Affairs Groups


Within Each Functional Area of Management


Planning

Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications
Chief Student Affairs 50 3.127
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 2.660

Housing Professional Staff 52 2.859

1.020 3.05 0.0508 non-significant




Organizing

Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications
Chief Student Affairs 50 3.333
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 2.698

Housing Professional Staff 52 2.712

1.041 7.04 0.0013 significant











Table 4-10. (cont.)


Leading

Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 3.200
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 2.391

Housing Professional Staff 52 4.199

1.126 7.82 0.0006 significant






Controlling

Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 3.347
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 2.718

Housing Professional Staff 52 3.763

1.027 5.72 0.0042 significant











Table 4-11.


Results of Bonferonni Pairwise Comparison t-tests for the Application of the Persuasion Tactic


by Student Affairs Groups Within the Management Function of Organizing


Comparison Groups N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 3.333
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 2.698

1.029 11.28 0.0012 significant



Comparison Groups N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 3.333
Officers

Housing Professional Staff 52 2.712

1.058 10.50 0.0017 significant



Comparison Groups N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Housing Officers 53 2.698

Housing Professional Staff 52 2.712

1.010 0.00 0.9469 non-significant











Table 4-12.


Results of Bonferonni Pairwise Comparison t-tests for the Application of the Persuasion Tactic
by Student Affairs Groups Within the Management Function of Leading


Comparison Groups N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 3.200
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 2.560

1.144 8.65 0.0042 significant




Comparison Groups N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 3.200
Officers

Housing Professional Staff 52 2.391

1.160 14.08 0.0003 significant




Comparison Groups N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Housing Officers 53 2.560

Housing Professional Staff 52 2.391

1.038 0.69 0.4073 non-significant











Table 4-13.


Results of Bonferonni Pairwise Comparison t-tests for the Aoolication of the Persuasion Tactic


by Student Affairs Groups Within the Management Function of Controlling


Comparison Groups N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 3.347
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 2.862

S1.072 6.04 0.0160 significant





Comparison Groups N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 3.347
Officers

Housing Professional Staff 52 2.718

0.994 12.25 0.0007 significant






Comparison Groups N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Housing Officers 53 2.862

Housing Professional Staff 52 2.718

0.992 0.55 0.4603 non-significant


lr r 1











Edict Tactic Within Each Management Function

A GLM analysis of variance test was used to determine if significant differences

existed among student affairs administrators in their perceived appropriateness for the

application of the edict tactic for change implementation within each of the specific

management areas. The analysis was conducted using the edict tactic as the dependent

variable and administrative position as the independent variable. The analysis was designed to

test hypothesis 9.

Hypothesis 9. There is no difference among the three groups of student affairs staff

in regard to their perceived appropriateness for the application of the edict implementation

tactic to housing administrative tasks within the four functional areas of management.

The results of the analysis of the edict tactic for change implementation within the

four management areas of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling are detailed in Table

4-14. Because the probability was greater than the .05 level of significance on all tests, the

null hypothesis was not rejected. There is no statistically significant difference among the

three student affairs staff groups in their perceived appropriateness for the application of the

edict tactic for planned change within any of the four functional areas of management.

The comparison across the student affairs groups for the planning function produced

an F-value of 0.74 and a p-value of 0.4778. The organizing function comparison revealed an

F-value of 1.00 with a p-value of 0.3714. The leading function comparison produced an

F-value of 0.14 and a p-value of 0.8668. The remaining comparison within the controlling

management function revealed an F-value of 0.80 with a resulting p-value of 0.4532.











Table 4-14.


Analysis of Variance for the Application of the Edict Tactic by
Student Affairs Groups Within Each Functional Area of Management


Planning

Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications
Chief Student Affairs 50 2.020
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 2.151

Housing Professional Staff 52 2.237

0.896 0.74 0.4778 non-significant



Organizing

Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 2.287
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 2.214

Housing Professional Staff 52 2.481

0.989 1.00 0.3714 non-significant



Leading

Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 1.933
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 1.962

Housing Professional Staff 52 2.032

0.950 0.14 0.8668 non-significant











Table 4-14. (cont.)


Controlling

Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications
Chief Student Affairs 50 2.727
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 2.673
Housing Professional Staff 52 2.923

1.037 0.80 0.4523 non-significant


Chapter Summary

This chapter has presented the results of the study. Details concerning the sample

population, hypotheses tested, rate of return, and the procedures of the statistical analysis

have been provided. Additionally, the results of the analysis were described. A summary of

the analyses is presented in the following general statements.

1. Nutt's change implementation tactics were applied to change situations in a

statistically significant manner. Each tactic was utilized independently by the respondents in

evaluating the applicability of the tactics to change situations.

2. Regarding the perceived appropriateness for the application of the intervention

tactic to planned change, the three groups of student affairs administrators did not differ

significantly in their application of the tactic.

3. There was no significant difference between the student affairs administrative

groups in their perceived appropriateness for the application of the participation tactic for the

implementation of planned change.











4. Chief student affairs officers differed significantly in their application of the

persuasion tactic for the implementation of planned change from both chief housing officers

and professional level housing staff. Chief housing officers and professional level housing

staff did not differ significantly in their application of the persuasion tactic.

5. With regard for the edict tactic for the implementation of planned change, none of

the three groups differed significantly in their perceived appropriateness for its application.

6. When the participation tactic was evaluated within each of the functional areas of

management, differences to the .05 level of significance were shown to exist between the

chief housing officer and the professional level housing staff in the management areas of

organizing and controlling. No other significance was shown.

7. The chief student affairs officers differed significantly in their perceived

appropriateness for the application of the persuasion tactic with both the chief housing officers

and the housing professional staff in the management areas of organizing, leading, and

controlling. The chief student affairs officers and the chief housing officers differed

significantly within the planning management function. No significant differences were

detected for this tactic between the chief housing officer and housing professional staff.

8. The three student affairs administrative groups did not differ significantly in their

perceptions of the appropriateness of the edict tactic for change implementation within any of

the four management areas.

Chapter IV has presented specific information regarding the analysis conducted on the

data from the study. Chapter V presents a summary of the study, findings, conclusions, and

recommendations and implications for future research.















CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


This chapter consists of five sections. The first section is an overview of the

development and design of the study. The second section presents a summary of the major

findings. In the third section conclusions from the study are identified. In the fourth section,

a discussion of the conclusions are presented. The fifth section includes some possible

implications for future research.

Development of the Study

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceived appropriateness of change

tactics, as represented by Nutt's model of four change implementation tactics, by three groups

of student affairs staff in the implementation of planned change in the administration of

college and university student housing operations. This study examined the perceptions of

chief student affairs officers, chief housing officers, and professional level members of the

housing staff immediately subordinate to the chief housing officer.

Justification of the Study

The literature of higher education, from student affairs through academic affairs, is

filled with calls for change. Whether it be Astin's call for excellence through student

involvement (Astin, 1985), numerous national reports on the post-secondary education itself,

i.e., Involvement in Learning (1984), Integrity in the College Curriculum (1985), College:

The Undergraduate Experience in America (Boyer, 1986), Hodgkinson's (1983) predictions









84

concerning students for the decades ahead, or Keller's (1983) call for a new style of leader for

institutions, these reports seem to indicate the need for change. Few, if any, of these studies

provide methods on how to implement planned change or how to successfully carry out the

goals they have expressed. It would seem evident from these calls for change that knowing

how to go about changing, from a administrative perspective, would be essential. Keller

(1983, p. 26) puts it explicitly by stating "Colleges and universities clearly need to plan for

these--and other--upheavals and to construct a more active, change-oriented management style.

The era of laissez-faire campus administration is over." If administrators, in general, and

student affairs officers, in particular, are going to be able to move their institutions or

departments ahead in a more effective manner, there is clearly a need, not only to understand

change, but also to know what tactics for accomplishing change might be effectively

employed. To this end, an understanding of the preferred methods or approaches to the

implementation of change by the individuals involved in the process could prove helpful to the

sponsor or initiator of that change. The use of Nutt's taxonomy of change implementation

tactics could also prove helpful to the student affairs officer seeking specific tactics through

which to proceed in implementing a planned change.

Administrators in all aspects of higher education are called upon or are beginning to

be called upon to respond to change. As part of this administrative group in higher

education, those student affairs officers charged with the administration and management of

student housing operations are also faced with critical decisions that call for them to

implement successful changes. Campus housing operations generally have responsibility for

the health, well-being, safety, and education of the students that live in the facilities

administered by the organization. Because of this multifaceted role, the student affairs staff











directing the housing operation are frequently faced with the need to constantly review and

change policies, procedures, programs, budgets, staffing patterns, and training requirements.

To accomplish change in the most effective manner, those individuals involved in the

implementation and decision making process should understand and appreciate the views as to

the preferred approach to the implementation of those changes by the various administrators

involved. Varying views on the preferred approach to the implementation of a planned

change by those in the chain of command responsible for management of the changes could

create unnecessary conflict, lack of support, and possibly lack of success for the overall

project. Developing some sense of what tactics administrators prefer in a given type of

situation can help with the overall understanding necessary to make the change process

successful. For these reasons it appeared that to focus this study on these administrative

levels would be highly appropriate and beneficial.

Conceptual Framework

As a result of his research, Nutt developed four descriptive categories that delineate

approximately 93% of the planned change implementation tactics used by a selected group of

managers in selected service related institutions. The four implementation tactics as described

by Nutt are as follows:

Intervention. To initiate change processes, the manager-sponsors became protagonists

by creating rationales for action in the minds of key people. They appraise performance

levels and demonstrate performance inadequacies by applying new norms created by these

rationales. Nutt (1986,1987) found that the implementation by intervention tactic was used in

17% (Nutt, 1986) and 21% (Nutt, 1987) of the cases he examined with a change adoption

success rate of 100% in both study reports.

Participation. Manager-sponsors initiate change processes by stipulating needs or









86

opportunities and then assigning decisions for developmental activities. Participation involves

several levels of involvement, (a) token participation, (b) delegated participation, (c) complete

participation, and (d) comprehensive participation. Nutt reported that implementation by

participation was observed in 17% (Nutt, 1986) and 15% (Nutt, 1987) of the cases studied,

with an overall change adoption success rate of 84% reported from the 1986 study and 78%

in the 1987 study.

Persuasion. Manager-sponsors made little effort to manage change processes and

monitor their progress due to disinterest, lack of knowledge, or powerful or persuasive

protagonists. Change process is allowed to be controlled by experts. Experts present

products for approval. They make attempts to sell options that perform best, using projected

benefits to argue for adoption. Sponsors take passive roles, encouraging sales pitches from

interested parties so they could weigh imperatives to act. In his studies, Nutt found 29%

(Nutt, 1986) and 48% (Nutt, 1987) occurrence of implementation by persuasion with a change

adoption success rate of 73% reported from the 1986 study and 74% from the 1987 study.

Implementation by persuasion was the most frequently employed of all the tactics reported by

Nutt but was not reported as the most successful for the adoption of the planned change.

Edict. Edict involves the sponsor using control and personal power while avoiding

any form of participation. Three key features are (a) sponsor's control of change process is

intermittent with no common theme, (b) sponsors do not discuss changes with users in any

attempt to justify the need for change, and (c) sponsors issue directives by managerial fiat.

Managers simply announce changes. Nutt's research revealed a use rate of 23% (1986) and

16% (1987) from his case studies with an overall successful change adoption rate of 43%

reported from the 1986 study and 40% in the 1987 study.










Review of the Literature

The review of the literature was to provide background information on the areas of

change management, change as related to student affairs, and the functional areas of

management. A particular area of focus was Nutt's taxonomy of change implementation

tactics and the functional areas of management. Nutt's implementation tactics were described

in terms of definition and how these tactics emerged from his research. The functional areas

of management were described by providing some historical development as well as a review

of current writers as to the various methods of describing these universal functions.

Methodology

The population for this study consisted of all the chief student affairs officers, chief

housing officers, and subordinate housing officers at public four-year colleges and

universities. The population sample for the study was developed by a stratified random

selection of 100 respondents for each of the three student affairs staff groups, creating a total

sample population of 300. The samples were drawn from all public four year institutions that

were United States members of the Association of College and University Officers-

International (ACUHO-I) and that housed 2000 single students or more in their on-campus

facilities. ACUHO-I is an international organization designed to represent, foster, develop,

promote, and improve the field of college and university housing administration. It has a total

international membership of nearly 700 schools representing both 2- and 4-year public,

private, religious, and proprietary institutions. The total number of institutions qualifying as

the accessible population was 178, according to the 1989 ACUHO-I Directory (Sautter,

1989). Any institution that did not have all three groups of student affairs staff was

eliminated from the study. The 178 qualifying institutions were arranged in alphabetical order

by state and then numbered in order from 1 to 178. Three separate computer generated










random number series were produced and applied to the institutional list of 178 qualifying

schools. This produced three separately drawn groups from the same number of qualifying

institutions. The three groups, each drawn randomly, were the chief student affairs officer,

the chief housing officer, and professional members of the housing/residence life staff

immediately subordinate to the chief housing officer. Subordinate housing officers selected as

respondents for the study were determined based on the job title listed in the 1989 ACUHO-I

Directory in the order of (a) associate director, or equivalent title, (b) assistant director, or

equivalent title, and (c) coordinator, or equivalent title. In cases of multiple holders of

similar titles, a random selection was initiated to select the respondent.

Of the 300 student affairs staff surveyed there were a total of 166 (55.3%) returns.

Of that total, eleven instruments were rejected. Of the eleven rejected, seven surveys were

completed by other than the selected level of staff, two were returned too late to be included

in the analysis, and two were returned improperly completed. The total useable return was

155 (51.7%). This number was used in the analysis. The return rate breakdown by student

affairs staff group revealed that the chief student affairs officers response total was 59

(19.7%), the chief housing officers response total was 54 (18.0%), and the housing staff

responded with a total of 53 (17.7%) of the total returns.

The instrument used, "A Study of Change Implementation in Student Housing

Management," (Appendix I) included 12 descriptive situations of management situations

common to campus student housing. The 12 situations were grouped into four sections

representing specific management tasks. Each situation was followed by a response section in

which four types of change implementation tactics were listed. These tactics reflected the

change implementation tactics described by Nutt. Each respondent was asked to rate each

tactic in terms of its perceived applicability to the management situation that was presented.










The respondents were asked to rate each tactic on a one (never applicable) to five (always

applicable) scale. With this scale, the closer the mean score for the tactic was to five, the

more applicable the tactic was perceived to be to managerial situations, and the closer the

mean score of the tactic was to one, the less applicable it was perceived to be.

The responses to the four change implementation tactics across the twelve hypothetical

change situations provided a measure of the perceived overall appropriateness of each of the

tactics, the perceived appropriateness of each of the tactics within a specific functional

management area, and the differences among the three levels of student affairs staff as to their

perceived appropriateness of each of the tactics in total and in relation to functional

management areas.

The data generated by the responses to the survey instrument was analyzed using the

Statistical Analysis System (SAS). One-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) using the general

linear model (GLM) for unbalanced data was used to test eight of the hypotheses. A simple t-

test was used to test hypothesis 1. These analyses allowed the researcher to compare the

means of the three groups involved in the study.

Summary of Major Findings

There were nine null hypotheses that were tested in this study. Of the nine, four were

rejected. The following statements furnish a compilation of the findings.

1. Nutt's change implementation tactics were applied to change situations in a

statistically significant manner. That is, each tactic was utilized independently by the

respondents in evaluating the applicability of the tactics to change situations. The rating

scores for each tactic differed significantly from the scores of the other tactics thus suggesting

that the approaches described by the tactics were perceived as unique by the respondents.










2. Regarding the perceived appropriateness for the application of the intervention

tactic to planned change, the three groups of student affairs administrators did not differ

significantly in their application of the tactic.

3. There was no significant difference between the student affairs administrative

groups in their perceived appropriateness for the application of the participation tactic for the

implementation of planned change.

4. Chief student affairs officers differed significantly in their application of the

persuasion tactic for the implementation of planned change from both chief housing officers

and professional level housing staff. Chief housing officers and professional level housing

staff did not differ significantly in their application of the persuasion tactic.

5. With regard to the edict tactic for the implementation of planned change, none of

the three groups differed significantly in their perceived appropriateness for its application.

6. When evaluating the intervention tactic for implementation within each of the four

functional management areas of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling, no differences

to the .05 level of significance were shown between the administrative groups within any of

the other management areas.

7. When the participation tactic was evaluated within each of the functional areas of

management, differences to the .05 level of significance were shown to exist between the

chief housing officer and the professional level housing staff in the management area of

controlling. In this comparison, the chief housing officer preferred to apply a participation

tactic to change implementation to a greater extent than the professional housing staff. No

other significance was shown.










8. The persuasion tactic of change implementation produced the greatest amount of

significant differences between the administrative groups when tested within the functional

management areas. The chief student affairs officers differed significantly in their perceived

appropriateness for the application of the persuasion tactic with both the chief housing officers

and the housing professional staff in the management areas of organizing, leading, and

controlling. In all cases the chief student affairs officers gave this tactic a higher

appropriateness rating for application than did the other two administrative groups. No

significant differences were detected for the planning function between any of the three

administrative groups.

9. The three student affairs administrative groups did not differ significantly in their

perceptions of the appropriateness of the edict tactic for change implementation within any of

the four management areas.

Conclusions

The following conclusions are presented as a result of this study.

1. The instrument used in this study differentiates, for statistical purposes, differences

among administrators and their preferred application of the four change implementation

tactics.

2. The results of the study provided support for the conclusions of Nutt that the four

implementation tactics represent change tactics applicable to various change situations.

3. The results of this study extend Nutt's model of change implementation tactics to

higher education administration.

4. Although all four tactics were perceived to be applicable to change situations,

there were clear preferences for some over others across all administrative groups.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - Version 2.9.7 - mvs