Citation
Preferred strategies of selected university student affairs administrators in implementing change using Nutt's four models of change implementation tactics

Material Information

Title:
Preferred strategies of selected university student affairs administrators in implementing change using Nutt's four models of change implementation tactics
Creator:
Woodham, Branan D., 1950- ( Dissertant )
Wattenbarger, James L. ( Thesis advisor )
Sandeen, C. Arthur ( Reviewer )
James, John H. ( Reviewer )
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1991
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 133 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Analysis of variance ( jstor )
College students ( jstor )
Colleges ( jstor )
Educational research ( jstor )
Higher education ( jstor )
Housing ( jstor )
Persuasion ( jstor )
Propriety ( jstor )
Support personnel ( jstor )
University administration ( jstor )
College administrators -- Decision making -- United States
Organizational change
Student housing -- Management -- United States
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
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 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 and both the chief housing officers and 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 difference while the edict tactic showed no differences in application.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1991.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 130-132).

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
AJD5369 ( ltuf )
25770609 ( oclc )
0027207975 ( ALEPH )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












PREFERRED STRATEGIES OF SELECTED UNIVERSITY
STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS IN IMPLEMENTING CHANGE USING
NUTTY'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 . I

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

11 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . 18

O verview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Nutt's Model of Change Implementation Tactics . 18 Planned Change and Change Implementation . 26 M anagement 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 Sum m ary . 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 Instrum ent . 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 Offi cers . 116

H Follow-up Letter to Respondents . 118 1 Survey Instrum ent . 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
G roups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59


4-3 Analysis of Variance for the Application of the
Participation Tactic Across Student Affairs
G roups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1


4-4 Analysis of Variance for the Application of the
Persuasion Tactic Across Student Affairs
G roups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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








TablPe


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




. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74





. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76





. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77


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

I










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 a], 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 oncampus 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 I

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 Learnin (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. 'Be 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, ftilfills 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 Swdy

There is much in the literature concerning planned change and the various theories and processes involved in such activity (Bennis, Benne, & Chin, 1985; Lindquist, 1979). 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 oncampus 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

Chan is the modification of, deletion of, or addition to attitudes and behaviors existing in a person, group, organization or larger system (Lindquist, 1978).

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

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

Mannement 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 Director (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 Director 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 a], 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 1) 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 change(s) 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 I 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 change(s) 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 OfficersInternational, 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 1. Chapter 11 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 11
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. Ile 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. Tle 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 Participatio

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 careftilly 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 change(s) 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 Persuasio

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 expert's 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. Tlie 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. 11irdly, 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 I below displays a summary overview of the four implementation tactics and the key features of each.
















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 restated 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. Co-optation of key people


Table 2.1

SummM of Nutt's Change implementation Tactics (Nutt, 1987)











Table 2.1 (continued) Fr

Tactic 0(


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 Chan2e 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, 1992; Foster, 1986; Tushman, 1974). Much of the literature describing


Persuasion Implementation


1 48%


1. Demonstrations of value

2. An expert manages the planning process.








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-reeducative strategies is the involvement of a change agent. '17he 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 personaltherapeutic 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. Ile 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 symbol ic-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.










ManaLement 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:

I . 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. "nese 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:

Plannin , 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;

Organizin2, 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;

Directin , 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;

Coordinatin , 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. Liaiso n Tis 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-al locator role, a manager
determines the distribution of organizational resources such as money,
time, and equipment.








39

4. Negotiate 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 . 11is 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.

Omanizin . 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. Ile 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 . Tle 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 Objectiv

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 I

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 basics 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. ne 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 Director (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 I 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 DirectoU 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 Instrumen

Ile 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 "ftinctional elements" of management as planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling. Fayol considered these functions to be universal ftinctions 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 a], 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 Situation

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. Ile final descriptive paragraphs for the four change tactics were as follows:

Intervention . Tle 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 improvement(s) in performance or the situation.

Edig. 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 change(s) to be initiated. Compliance with the change is anticipated and expected. CHO monitors change for performance or situation improvement(s).

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 improvement(s).










L4qicipation. 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 improvement(s).

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 I 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 Printiniz of the Instrument

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










Management" (Appendix 1) 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. Ile 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 ACUHOI 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. Ile 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 (ANO VA)

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

T'his 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 OfficersInternational (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 Director (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 I to 178. 11ree separate computer generated random number series were produced and applied to the institutional list of 178 qualifying schools. 11is produced three separately drawn groups from the same number of qualifying institutions. The three groups, each drawn randon-dy, 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. Tlie 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 I 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 1), 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 Tvalue 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. Tle 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

Ile 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. 'Me 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 1 0.069 1 4.00 0.0001 significant















Edict Tactic compared to

Tactic N Mean SD T-Value Probability Implications


Intervention 155 3.847 0.083 18.5S 0.0001 significant

Persuasion 155 1 2.866 1 0.097 1 5.79 1 0.0001 1 significant

Participation 155 4.12S 0.100 18.14 0.0001 significant



Persuasion Tactic compared to

Tactic N Mean SD T-Value Probability Implications


Intervention ISS 3.847 0.099 9.88 0.0001 significant

Edict ISS 2.304 0.097 5.79 0.0001 significant

Participation 1 155 4.125 0.078 16.06 0.0001 significant t




Participation Tactic compared to

Tactic N Mean SD T-Value Probability Implications


Intervention 15S 3.847 0.069 4.00 0.0001 significant

Edict 155 2.304 0.100 18.14 0.0001 significant

Persuasion 1 155 1 2.866 0.078 1 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


Table 4-1. (cont.)









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 1 3.857 1
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. Ile analysis was conducted using the participation tactic as the dependent variable and administrative position as the independent variable. "Me 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.


















Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications
Chief Student Affairs 50 4.148
Officers
Chief Housing Officers 53 1 4.242 Housing Professional Staff 52 3.982

1 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.

Ile 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.


Table 4-3. Analysis of Variance for the Application of the Participation Tactic across Student Affairs Groul2s










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 _ ___ ____1 1 10.846 111.14 0.0012 significant






Comparison Groups N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 3.252
Officers

Housing Professional Staff 52 12.6701 11

-0.891 13.40 0.0004 significant







Comparison Groups N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Housing Officers S3 2.695

Housg Professional Staff 52 2.670 ___________i i 10.849 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 Mana2ement 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.

Ile 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. Ilerefore, 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 Group Within Each Functional Area of Mannement


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
-it





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
















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.


Table 4-7. (cont.)










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 Fvalue 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 .0 157. 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 14.358

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
















Controlling

Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 4.000
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 1 4.170 1

Housing Professional Staff 52 3.763

0.877 2.90 0.0590 non-significant


Table 4-8. (cont.)












Table 4-9.

Results of Bonferonni Pairwise Comparison N-ests for the Application of the Participation


Tactic by Student Affairs Groups Within the Management Function of Controllin2


Comparison Groups N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 4.000
Officers

Ch ousing Officers 53 14.170 1____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_______10.892 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_______0.901t 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.










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 4-1 1 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 2.71211

1.041 7.04 0.0013 significant












Table 4-10. (cont.)


Leading_________ ___Group N IMean 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 1-0.0006 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 Organizinu


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 I 1 1.072 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 b~y Student Affairs Groups Within Each Functional Area of Manaizement


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 2.2 14

H o u s i n g P r o f e s s i o n a l S t a ff 5 2 1 2 . 4 8 1 1 0 . 8 1 0 0.3 4n o - i i f c t






Leading___________________Group N Mean SD F-Value Probability Implications

Chief Student Affairs 50 1.933
Officers

Chief Housing Officers 53 11.9621

Housing Professional Staff 52 2.032 10.950 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 1 2.673 1
Housing Professional Staff 52 2.923

1 1.037 0.80 0.4523 non-significant -ji


ChaVter 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. Ile 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. Ile 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

Pu!Pos

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 S Ldy

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 Learnin (1984), Integrity in the College Curriculum (1985), College: The Under2raduate 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 tke 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.

Edi gj. 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 flat. 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. Ile 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. Methodq!QU

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 OfficersInternational (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 Director (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 I 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. "Me 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 DirectoU 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 1) 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. 'nese 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.










Ile 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 ttest 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 Maior Finding

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.

Conclusion

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.




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E79I5S31O_NGVPBD INGEST_TIME 2017-07-20T21:10:09Z PACKAGE UF00102737_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

35()(55(' 675$7(*,(6 2) 6(/(&7(' 81,9(56,7< 678'(17 $))$,56 $'0,1,675$7256 ,1 ,03/(0(17,1* &+$1*( 86,1* 1877f6 )285 02'(/6 2) &+$1*( ,03/(0(17$7,21 7$&7,&6 %< %5$1$1 :22'+$0 $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( 6&+22/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

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

PAGE 3

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

PAGE 4

7$%/( 2) &217(176 $&.12:/('*(0(176 LL /,67 2) 7$%/(6 YL $%675$&7 YLLL &+$37(56 '(6&5,37,21 2) 7+( 678'< ,QWURGXFWLRQ 6WDWHPHQW RI WKH 3UREOHP 7KHRUHWLFDO )UDPHZRUN 2YHUYLHZ RI 5HVHDUFK 0HWKRGRORJ\ 2UJDQL]DWLRQ RI WKH 6WXG\ ,, 5(9,(: 2) 7+( /,7(5$785( 2YHUYLHZ 1XWWfV 0RGHO RI &KDQJH ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ 7DFWLFV 3ODQQHG &KDQJH DQG &KDQJH ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ 0DQDJHPHQW )XQFWLRQV &KDSWHU 6XPPDU\ ,,, 5(6($5&+ '(6,*1 $1' 0(7+2'2/2*< 5HVHDUFK 2EMHFWLYHV 5HVHDUFK 3RSXODWLRQ DQG 6DPSOH 'HYHORSPHQW RI WKH ,QVWUXPHQW 'HVLJQ DQG 3ULQWLQJ RI WKH ,QVWUXPHQW $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI WKH ,QVWUXPHQW 7UHDWPHQW RI WKH 'DWD &KDSWHU 6XPPDU\ ,9 35(6(17$7,21 $1' $1$/<6,6 2) 7+( '$7$ 5HVHDUFK 3RSXODWLRQ DQG 6DPSOH $QDO\VLV RI WKH 'DWD &KDSWHU 6XPPDU\ ,9

PAGE 5

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

PAGE 6

/,67 2) 7$%/(6 7DEOH 3DJH 6XPPDU\ RI 1XWWf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

PAGE 7

7DEOH 3DSH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH IRU WKH $SSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH 3DUWLFLSDWLRQ 7DFWLF E\ WKH 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV *URXSV :LWKLQ (DFK )XQFWLRQDO $UHD RI 0DQDJHPHQW 5HVXOWV RI %RQIHURQQL 3DLUZLVH &RPSDULVRQ WWHVWV IRU WKH $SSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH 3DUWLFLSDWLRQ 7DFWLF E\ 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV *URXSV :LWKLQ WKH 0DQDJHPHQW )XQFWLRQ RI &RQWUROOLQJ $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH IRU WKH $SSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH 3HUVXDVLRQ 7DFWLF E\ 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV *URXSV :LWKLQ (DFK )XQFWLRQDO $UHD RI 0DQDJHPHQW 5HVXOWV RI %RQIHURQQL 3DLUZLVH &RPSDULVRQ WWHVWV IRU WKH $SSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH 3HUVXDVLRQ 7DFWLF E\ 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV *URXSV :LWKLQ WKH 0DQDJHPHQW )XQFWLRQ RI 2UJDQL]LQJ 5HVXOWV RI %RQIHURQQL 3DLUZLVH &RPSDULVRQ WWHVWV IRU WKH $SSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH 3HUVXDVLRQ 7DFWLF E\ 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV *URXSV :LWKLQ WKH 0DQDJHPHQW )XQFWLRQ RI /HDGLQJ 5HVXOWV RI %RQIHURQQL 3DLUZLVH &RPSDULVRQ WWHVWV IRU WKH $SSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH 3HUVXDVLRQ 7DFWLF E\ 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV *URXSV :LWKLQ WKH 0DQDJHPHQW )XQFWLRQ RI &RQWUROOLQJ $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH IRU WKH $SSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH (GLFW 7DFWLF E\ 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV *URXSV :LWKLQ (DFK )XQFWLRQDO $UHD RI 0DQDJHPHQW YLL

PAGE 8

$EVWUDFW RI 'LVVHUWDWLRQ 3UHVHQWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD LQ 3DUWLDO )XOILOOPHQW RI WKH 5HTXLUHPHQWV RI WKH 'HJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 35()(55(' 675$7(*,(6 2) 6(/(&7(' 81,9(56,7< 678'(17 $))$,56 $'0,1,675$7256 ,1 ,03/(0(17,1* &+$1*( 86,1* 1877f6 )285 02'(/6 2) &+$1*( ,03/(0(17$7,21 7$&7,&6 E\ %UDQDQ :RRGKDP 'HFHPEHU &KDLUSHUVRQ 'U -DPHV / :DWWHQEDUJHU 0DMRU 'HSDUWPHQW (GXFDWLRQDO /HDGHUVKLS 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH SHUFHLYHG DSSOLFDELOLW\ RI FKDQJH WDFWLFV DV UHSUHVHQWHG E\ 1XWWf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fV IRXU LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV 7KH VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW ZDV PDLOHG WR WKUHH JURXSV RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV DGPLQLVWUDWRUV LQYROYHG ZLWK WKH VXSHUYLVLRQ DQG PDQDJHPHQW RI RQ FDPSXV VWXGHQW KRXVLQJ 7KH WKUHH DGPLQLVWUDWLYH JURXSV ZHUH WKH FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHU WKH FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHU DQG PHPEHUV RI WKH SURIHVVLRQDO KRXVLQJ VWDII LPPHGLDWHO\ VXERUGLQDWH WR WKH FKLHI KRXVLQJ YP

PAGE 9

RIILFHU $OO JURXSV ZHUH IURP SXEOLF LQVWLWXWLRQV ZLWK RQ FDPSXV KRXVLQJ SRSXODWLRQV RI RU JUHDWHU 7KHUH ZHUH DGPLQLVWUDWRUV LQ HDFK RI WKH WKUHH JURXSV GUDZQ IURP DQ LQVWLWXWLRQDO VDPSOH RI 6LPSOH WWHVWV DQG RQHZD\ DQDO\VHV RI YDULDQFH ZHUH XVHG WR DQDO\]H WKH GDWD ,I VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV H[LVWHG D IROORZXS SURFHGXUH WKH %RQIHUURQL WHVW IRU VLJQLILFDQFH ZDV XVHG WR LGHQWLI\ VSHFLILF GLIIHUHQFHV 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH VWXG\ SURYLGHG VXSSRUW IRU WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI 1XWWfV PRGHO WR FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ LQ VWXGHQW KRXVLQJ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ 7KH VWXG\ DOVR H[WHQGHG WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI 1XWWf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

PAGE 10

&+$37(5 '(6&5,37,21 2) 7+( 678'< ,QWURGXFWLRQ &KDQJH DV GHVFULEHG E\ /LQGTXLVW S f LV WKH PRGLILFDWLRQ RI GHOHWLRQ RI RU DGGLWLRQ WR DWWLWXGHV DQG EHKDYLRUV H[LVWLQJ LQ D SHUVRQ JURXS RUJDQL]DWLRQ RU ODUJHU V\VWHP :LWK WKLV GHILQLWLRQ LW LV HDV\ WR VHH WKDW FKDQJH LV D SHUYDVLYH IDFWRU LQ GDLO\ OLIH DQG LQ DOPRVW DQ\WKLQJ ZLWK ZKLFK RQH LV LQYROYHG 0LOOHU DQG 3ULQFH S f EHJLQ WKHLU ERRN 7KH )XWXUH RI 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV ZLWK WKH VWDWHPHQW QRWKLQJ LV SHUPDQHQW EXW FKDQJH LWVHOI DQG WKHQ SURFHHG WR GLVFXVV WKH QHHG IRU LQVWLWXWLRQV DQG LQGLYLGXDOV WR DVVXPH WKH REOLJDWLRQ WR SDUWLFLSDWH DFWLYHO\ LQ WKH SURFHVV RI FKDQJH 7KH DXWKRUV FRQWLQXH WKH GLVFXVVLRQ DERXW FKDQJH E\ SRLQWLQJ RXW WKH UROH WKDW KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ KDV SOD\HG WKURXJKRXW WKLV FRXQWU\f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f SRLQWHG RXW WKDW VLQFH PRUH DWWHQWLRQ KDV EHHQ SDLG WR WKH WUDLQLQJ DQG GHYHORSPHQW RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO DGPLQLVWUDWRUV WKDQ HYHU EHIRUH 7KH UHVXOW KH IHHOV LV WKDW WRGD\fV LQVWLWXWLRQV DUH PXFK EHWWHU PDQDJHG LQ

PAGE 11

WHUPV RI SODQQLQJ EXGJHWLQJ DGPLVVLRQV DQG UHFRUG NHHSLQJ %XW KH DGGV WKDW WKLV WUDLQLQJ KDV QRW NHSW SDFH ZLWK PRGHUQ HGXFDWLRQ ,PSOLFLW LQ WKLV VWDWHPHQW LV WKH QHHG WR LQYHVW IXUWKHU LQ WKH PDQDJHPHQW RI SODQQHG FKDQJH 7KHUH LV D QHHG WR SURYLGH DGPLQLVWUDWRUV ZLWK SURFHVVHV PHWKRGV JXLGHOLQHV DQG VWUDWHJLHV VR WKH\ PD\ HIIHFWLYHO\ XVH FKDQJH WR UHDFK GHVLUHG JRDOV %HQQLV %HQQH DQG &KLQ f KDYH REVHUYHG WKDW FKDQJH RFFXUV WKURXJK WZR EDVLF V\VWHPV RI WKRXJKW WKH ODZ RI QRQLQWHUYHQWLRQ DQG WKH ODZ RI UDGLFDO LQWHUYHQWLRQ :LWKLQ ERWK RI WKHVH DUHDV RI WKRXJKW WKHUH DUH H[WUHPHV 2Q WKH QRQLQWHUYHQWLRQ VLGH LV WKH FRQFHSW RI ODLVVH]IDLUH GRFWULQH LQ ZKLFK DQ\ DWWHPSW WR DOWHU WKH QDWXUDO FRXUVH RI HYHQWV LV VHHQ DV QHJDWLYH WDPSHULQJ ZLWK WKH KXPDQ FRQGLWLRQ ZKLFK LI OHIW XQWRXFKHG ZRXOG EULQJ DERXW D PRUH RSWLPL]HG JRRG OLIH %HQQLV %HQQH t &KLQ f $W WKH RWKHU H[WUHPH UDGLFDO LQWHUYHQWLRQ IRU FKDQJH LV VHHQ LQ WKH 0DU[LDQ WKHRU\ RI FODVV VWUXJJOH ZLWK LWV HPSKDVLV RQ FRQIOLFW HYHQ WR WKH SRLQW RI FUHDWLQJ KXPDQ VXIIHULQJ WR EULQJ DERXW FKDQJH $FFRUGLQJ WR %HQQLV %HQQH DQG &KLQ f SODQQHG FKDQJH HPHUJHV DV WKH RQO\ IHDVLEOH DOWHUQDWLYH WR WKH DERYH WZR DUHDV RI WKRXJKW 7KH\ SURSRVH WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI SODQQHG FKDQJH DV D PHWKRG ZKLFK VHOIFRQVFLRXVO\ DQG H[SHULPHQWDOO\ HPSOR\V VRFLDO NQRZOHGJH WR KHOS VROYH WKH SUREOHPV RI PHQ DQG VRFLHWLHV S f &RPELQLQJ WKH WZR GHILQLWLRQV XVHG DERYH RI FKDQJH DQG SODQQHG FKDQJH SODQQHG FKDQJH FDQ DOVR EH WKRXJKW RI DV D FRQVFLRXV WKRXJKWIXO SXUSRVHIXO RUJDQL]HG DQG NQRZOHGJHDEOH DSSURDFK WR WKH PRGLILFDWLRQ RI GHOHWLRQ RI RU DGGLWLRQ WR DWWLWXGHV DQG EHKDYLRUV H[LVWLQJ LQ D SHUVRQ JURXS RUJDQL]DWLRQ RU ODUJHU V\VWHP 7XVKPDQ S f SXWV IRUWK D GHILQLWLRQ RI SODQQHG FKDQJH ODUJHO\ GHYHORSHG E\ /LSSLWW f ZKHUHLQ SODQQHG FKDQJH LV GHILQHG DV D GHFLVLRQ WR PDNH D GHOLEHUDWH HIIRUW WR LPSURYH WKH V\VWHP DQG WR REWDLQ WKH KHOS RI D FKDQJH DJHQW LQ PDNLQJ WKLV LPSURYHPHQW

PAGE 12

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t %ODQFKDUG .DQWHU 0DUWHO 0LOOHU t 3ULQFH 3HWHUV 3HWHUV t :DWHUPDQ f :LWK WKH QHHG WR FKDQJH HVWDEOLVKHG SROLF\ GLUHFWLRQV DQG SDWWHUQV RI DFFRPSOLVKLQJ WDVNV LQVWLWXWLRQV UHTXLUH WRROV DQG JXLGHOLQHV ZLWK ZKLFK WR HYDOXDWH SODQ DQG LPSOHPHQW FKDQJH 3DXO & 1XWW f FRQGXFWHG D VWXG\ LQ ZKLFK KH HYDOXDWHG WKH SODQQHG FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ HIIRUWV RI VHUYLFH RULHQWHG LQVWLWXWLRQV 1XWW WKURXJK KLV UHVHDUFK IRXQG WKDW b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

PAGE 13

6WDWHPHQW RI WKH 3UREOHP 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH SHUFHLYHG DSSURSULDWHQHVV RI FKDQJH WDFWLFV DV UHSUHVHQWHG E\ 1XWWf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fV LQWHUYHQWLRQ WDFWLF WR VWXGHQW KRXVLQJ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH WDVNV VWUXFWXUHG DFURVV D IRXU IXQFWLRQ PRGHO RI PDQDJHPHQW +\SRWKHVLV 7KHUH LV QR GLIIHUHQFH DPRQJ WKH WKUHH JURXSV RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII LQ WKHLU SHUFHLYHG DSSURSULDWHQHVV IRU WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI 1XWWfV SDUWLFLSDWLRQ WDFWLF WR VWXGHQW KRXVLQJ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH WDVNV VWUXFWXUHG DFURVV D IRXU IXQFWLRQ PRGHO RI PDQDJHPHQW +\SRWKHVLV 7KHUH LV QR GLIIHUHQFH DPRQJ WKH WKUHH JURXSV RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII LQ WKHLU SHUFHLYHG DSSURSULDWHQHVV IRU WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI 1XWWfV SHUVXDVLRQ WDFWLF WR VWXGHQW KRXVLQJ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH WDVNV VWUXFWXUHG DFURVV D IRXU IXQFWLRQ PRGHO RI PDQDJHPHQW

PAGE 14

+\SRWKHVLV 7KHUH LV QR GLIIHUHQFH DPRQJ WKH WKUHH JURXSV RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII LQ WKHLU SHUFHLYHG DSSURSULDWHQHVV IRU WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI 1XWWf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fV FDOO IRU H[FHOOHQFH WKURXJK VWXGHQW LQYROYHPHQW $VWLQ f QXPHURXV QDWLRQDO UHSRUWV RQ WKH SRVWVHFRQGDU\ HGXFDWLRQ LWVHOI

PAGE 15

LH ,QYROYHPHQW LQ /HDUQLQJ f ,QWHJULW\ LQ WKH &ROOHJH &XUULFXOXP f &ROOHJH 7KH 8QGHUJUDGXDWH ([SHULHQFH LQ $PHULFD %R\HU f +RGJNLQVRQfV f SUHGLFWLRQV FRQFHUQLQJ VWXGHQWV IRU WKH GHFDGHV DKHDG RU .HOOHUfV f FDOO IRU D QHZ VW\OH RI OHDGHU IRU LQVWLWXWLRQV WKHVH UHSRUWV VHHP WR LQGLFDWH WKH QHHG IRU FKDQJH )HZ LI DQ\ RI WKHVH VWXGLHV SURYLGH PHWKRGV RQ KRZ WR LPSOHPHQW SODQQHG FKDQJH RU KRZ WR FDUU\ RXW VXFFHVVIXOO\ WKH JRDOV WKH\ KDYH H[SUHVVHG ,W ZRXOG VHHP HYLGHQW IURP WKHVH FDOOV IRU FKDQJH WKDW NQRZLQJ KRZ WR JR DERXW FKDQJLQJ IURP D DGPLQLVWUDWLYH SHUVSHFWLYH ZRXOG EH HVVHQWLDO .HOOHU S f SXWV LW H[SOLFLWO\ E\ VWDWLQJ &ROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV FOHDUO\ QHHG WR SODQ IRU WKHVHf§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f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

PAGE 16

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

PAGE 17

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b RI WKH SODQQHG FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV XVHG E\ D VHOHFWHG JURXS RI PDQDJHUV LQ VHOHFWHG VHUYLFHUHODWHG LQVWLWXWLRQV 7KH IRXU LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV DV GHVFULEHG E\ 1XWW DUH DV IROORZV ,QWHUYHQWLRQ 7R LQLWLDWH FKDQJH SURFHVVHV WKH PDQDJHUVSRQVRUV EHFRPH SURWDJRQLVWV E\ FUHDWLQJ UDWLRQDOHV IRU DFWLRQ LQ WKH PLQGV RI NH\ SHRSOH DSSUDLVLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH OHYHOV DQG GHPRQVWUDWLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH LQDGHTXDFLHV E\ DSSO\LQJ QHZ QRUPV FUHDWHG E\ WKHVH UDWLRQDOHV 1XWW f IRXQG WKDW WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ E\ LQWHUYHQWLRQ WDFWLF ZDV XVHG LQ b 1XWW f DQG b 1XWW f RI WKH FDVHV KH H[DPLQHG ZLWK D FKDQJH DGRSWLRQ VXFFHVV UDWH RI b LQ ERWK VWXG\ UHSRUWV

PAGE 18

3DUWLFLSDWLRQ 0DQDJHUVSRQVRUV LQLWLDWH FKDQJH SURFHVVHV E\ VWLSXODWLQJ QHHGV RU RSSRUWXQLWLHV DQG WKHQ DVVLJQLQJ GHFLVLRQV IRU GHYHORSPHQWDO DFWLYLWLHV 3DUWLFLSDWLRQ LQYROYHG VHYHUDO OHYHOV RI LQYROYHPHQW WRNHQ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ GHOHJDWHG SDUWLFLSDWLRQ FRPSOHWH SDUWLFLSDWLRQ DQG FRPSUHKHQVLYH SDUWLFLSDWLRQ 1XWW UHSRUWHG WKDW LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ E\ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ ZDV REVHUYHG LQ b 1XWW f DQG b 1XWW f RI WKH FDVHV VWXGLHG ZLWK DQ RYHUDOO FKDQJH DGRSWLRQ VXFFHVV UDWH RI b UHSRUWHG IURP WKH VWXG\ DQG b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b 1XWW f DQG b 1XWW f RFFXUUHQFH RI LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ E\ SHUVXDVLRQ ZLWK D FKDQJH DGRSWLRQ VXFFHVV UDWH RI b UHSRUWHG IURP WKH VWXG\ DQG b IURP WKH VWXG\ ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ E\ SHUVXDVLRQ ZDV WKH PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ HPSOR\HG RI DOO WKH WDFWLFV UHSRUWHG E\ 1XWW EXW ZDV QRW UHSRUWHG DV WKH PRVW VXFFHVVIXO IRU WKH VXFFHVVIXO DGRSWLRQ RI WKH SODQQHG FKDQJH (GLFW (GLFW LQYROYHV WKH VSRQVRU XVLQJ FRQWURO DQG SHUVRQDO SRZHU ZKLOH DYRLGLQJ DQ\ IRUP RI SDUWLFLSDWLRQ 7KUHH NH\ IHDWXUHV DUH Df VSRQVRUfV FRQWURO RI FKDQJH SURFHVV LV LQWHUPLWWHQW ZLWK QR FRPPRQ WKHPH Ef VSRQVRUV GR QRW GLVFXVV FKDQJHV ZLWK XVHUV LQ DQ\ DWWHPSW WR MXVWLI\ WKH QHHG IRU FKDQJH DQG Ff VSRQVRUV LVVXH GLUHFWLYHV E\ PDQDJHULDO ILDW 0DQDJHUV VLPSO\ DQQRXQFHG FKDQJHV 1XWWfV UHVHDUFK UHYHDOHG D XVH UDWH RI b f DQG

PAGE 19

b f IURP KLV FDVH VWXGLHV ZLWK DQ RYHUDOO VXFFHVVIXO FKDQJH DGRSWLRQ UDWH RI b UHSRUWHG IURP WKH VWXG\ DQG b LQ WKH VWXG\ 6LHQLILFDQFH RI WKH 6WXG\ 7KHUH LV PXFK LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH FRQFHUQLQJ SODQQHG FKDQJH DQG WKH YDULRXV WKHRULHV DQG SURFHVVHV LQYROYHG LQ VXFK DFWLYLW\ %HQQLV %HQQH t &KLQ /LQGTXLVW f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f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

PAGE 20

$VVXPSWLRQV ,Q WKLV VWXG\ WKH IROORZLQJ DVVXPSWLRQV ZHUH PDGH 5HVSRQGHQWV UHVSRQGHG DFFXUDWHO\ DQG KRQHVWO\ WR WKH VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7KH VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW DV GHYHORSHG DQG YDOLGDWHG ZDV DSSURSULDWH IRU DVVHVVLQJ SHUFHSWLRQ RI FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV RI WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV WKDW SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKH VWXG\ 7KH IRXU IXQFWLRQ PRGHO RI PDQDJHPHQW SODQQLQJ RUJDQL]LQJ OHDGLQJ DQG FRQWUROOLQJ ZKLFK ZDV XVHG DV D VWUXFWXUH WR GHOLQHDWH WKH PDMRU HOHPHQWV RI D FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHUfV MRE IRU WKH VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW LV DQ DFFXUDWH GHVFULSWLRQ RI DQG VWUXFWXUH IRU VXFK GXWLHV 'HILQLWLRQ RI 7HUPV &KDQJH LV WKH PRGLILFDWLRQ RI GHOHWLRQ RI RU DGGLWLRQ WR DWWLWXGHV DQG EHKDYLRUV H[LVWLQJ LQ D SHUVRQ JURXS RUJDQL]DWLRQ RU ODUJHU V\VWHP /LQGTXLVW f 3ODQQHG FKDQJH LV FKDQJH LQ ZKLFK DW OHDVW RQH RI WKH LQGLYLGXDOV LQYROYHG LQ WKH SURFHVV XVHV REYLRXV VSHFLILF DQG GHVLJQHG DWWHPSWV WR SURGXFH FKDQJH %HQQLV %HQQH t &KLQ f 6WXGHQW DIIDLUV LV DQ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH GLYLVLRQ LQ FROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV ZKRVH UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV LQFOXGH SURJUDPV DQG VHUYLFHV WKDW DUH GHVLJQHG WR DVVLVW WKH SHUVRQDO JURZWK RI VWXGHQWV DQG FRPSOHPHQW WKHLU DFDGHPLF GHYHORSPHQW &KLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHU UHIHUV WR WKDW FROOHJH RU XQLYHUVLW\ DGPLQLVWUDWRU ZKRVH SULQFLSDO UHVSRQVLELOLW\ LV WR RYHUVHH WKH RSHUDWLRQ RI SURJUDPV VHUYLFHV DQG VWDII LQ WKH GLYLVLRQ RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV

PAGE 21

&KLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHU UHIHUV WR WKDW FROOHJH RU XQLYHUVLW\ DGPLQLVWUDWRU ZKRVH SULQFLSDO UHVSRQVLELOLW\ LV WR RYHUVHH WKH VWDII SURJUDPV EXGJHW IDFLOLWLHV DQG JHQHUDO RSHUDWLRQ RI WKDW GHSDUWPHQW RI D FROOHJH RU XQLYHUVLW\ WKDW LV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU RQ DQG RII FDPSXV KRXVLQJ SURYLGHG IRU VWXGHQWV 6XERUGLQDWH KRXVLQJ RIILFHU UHIHUV WR D PHPEHU RI WKH SURIHVVLRQDO IXOOWLPH FDUHHUf KRXVLQJ VWDII GLUHFWO\ UHVSRQVLEOH WR WKH FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHU JHQHUDOO\ ZLWK D WLWOH RI DVVLVWDQW RU DVVRFLDWH GLUHFWRU RI KRXVLQJ RU UHVLGHQFH OLIH 7KLV OHYHO RI VWDII LV JHQHUDOO\ UHVSRQVLEOH IRU PDQDJHPHQW RI D SRUWLRQ RI WKH KRXVLQJ RSHUDWLRQ 0DQDJHPHQW UHIHUV WR D SURFHVV D VHULHV RI DFWLRQV DFWLYLWLHV RU RSHUDWLRQV WKDW OHDG WR VRPH HQG *LEVRQ ,YDQFHYLFK t 'RQQHOO\ f 8VXDOO\ WKH DFWLRQV DFWLYLWLHV RU RSHUDWLRQV RI PDQDJHPHQW DUH DFFRPSOLVKHG ZLWK DQG WKURXJK SHRSOH 2YHUYLHZ RI 5HVHDUFK 0HWKRGRORJ\ 7KH SULPDU\ LQWHQW RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH SHUFHLYHG DSSURSULDWHQHVV RI FKDQJH WDFWLFV DV UHSUHVHQWHG E\ 1XWWf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f DQG WKDW KRXVHG VLQJOH VWXGHQWV RU PRUH LQ WKHLU RQFDPSXV IDFLOLWLHV

PAGE 22

$&8+2, LV DQ LQWHUQDWLRQDO RUJDQL]DWLRQ GHVLJQHG WR UHSUHVHQW IRVWHU GHYHORS SURPRWH DQG LPSURYH WKH ILHOG RI FROOHJH DQG XQLYHUVLW\ KRXVLQJ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ ,W KDV D WRWDO LQWHUQDWLRQDO PHPEHUVKLS RI QHDUO\ VFKRROV UHSUHVHQWLQJ SXEOLF SULYDWH UHOLJLRXV DQG SURSULHWDU\ LQVWLWXWLRQV RI ERWK WKH DQG \HDU W\SH 7KH WRWDO QXPEHU RI LQVWLWXWLRQV TXDOLI\LQJ DV WKH DFFHVVLEOH SRSXODWLRQ ZDV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH $&8+2, 'LUHFWRU\ 6DXWWHU f $Q\ LQVWLWXWLRQ WKDW GLG QRW KDYH DOO WKUHH JURXSV RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII ZDV HOLPLQDWHG IURP WKH VWXG\ 6XERUGLQDWH KRXVLQJ RIILFHUV VHOHFWHG IRU WKLV VWXG\ ZHUH GHWHUPLQHG EDVHG RQ WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQDO SRVLWLRQ WKDW ZRXOG EH LPPHGLDWHO\ VXERUGLQDWH WR WKH FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHU 7KH VHOHFWLRQ ZDV EDVHG RQ WKH WLWOH OLVWHG LQ WKH $&8+2, 'LUHFWRU\ LQ WKH RUGHU RI Df DVVRFLDWH GLUHFWRU RU HTXLYDOHQW WLWOH Ef DVVLVWDQW GLUHFWRU RU HTXLYDOHQW WLWOH DQG Ff FRRUGLQDWRU RU HTXLYDOHQW WLWOH ,Q FDVHV RI PXOWLSOH KROGHUV RI VLPLODU WLWOHV D UDQGRP VHOHFWLRQ ZDV LQLWLDWHG WR VHOHFW WKH UHVSRQGHQW ,QVWUXPHQWDWLRQ 7KH LQWHQW RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH SHUFHLYHG DSSURSULDWHQHVV RI FHUWDLQ FKDQJH WDFWLFV DV UHSUHVHQWHG E\ 1XWWf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t 2f'RQQHOO f )D\RO GHYHORSHG IRXUWHHQ JHQHUDO SULQFLSOHV RI PDQDJHPHQW WKDW KH GHULYHG IURP KLV REVHUYDWLRQV DQG H[SHULHQFHV )URP WKHVH IRXUWHHQ

PAGE 23

SULQFLSOHV KH GHVFULEHG WKH IXQFWLRQDO HOHPHQWV RI PDQDJHPHQW DV SODQQLQJ RUJDQL]LQJ FRPPDQGLQJ FRRUGLQDWLQJ DQG FRQWUROOLQJ )D\RO FRQVLGHUHG WKHVH IXQFWLRQV WR EH XQLYHUVDO IXQFWLRQV WKDW DSSO\ QRW RQO\ WR EXVLQHVV RSHUDWLRQV EXW DOVR WR SROLWLFDO UHOLJLRXV HGXFDWLRQDO PLOLWDU\ DQG RWKHU HQWHUSULVHV .RRQW] t 2f'RQQHOO f )RU WKLV VWXG\ D IRXU SDUW GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH IXQFWLRQV RI PDQDJHPHQW ZDV XVHG 7KHVH IRXU IXQFWLRQV ZHUH VXSSRUWHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH E\ VHYHUDO DXWKRUV ZKLFK LQFOXGHG *LEVRQ HW DO .RRQW] DQG 2f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

PAGE 24

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f ZDV GHVLJQHG E\ WKH ZULWHU )RU HDFK RI WKH WKUHH WDVNV LGHQWLILHG IRU WKH IRXU IXQFWLRQDO DUHDV RI WKH PDQDJHPHQW PRGHO D K\SRWKHWLFDO VLWXDWLRQ ZDV SUHVHQWHG DQG GHVFULEHG (DFK VLWXDWLRQ GHVFULEHG D FRPPRQ SUHGLFDPHQW LQ WKH VWXGHQW KRXVLQJ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH VHWWLQJ WKDW ZRXOG UHTXLUH WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI FKDQJH )ROORZLQJ HDFK VLWXDWLRQ GHVFULSWLRQ ZHUH IRXU UHVSRQVH DUHDV 7KH IRXU UHVSRQVH DUHDV ZHUH HDFK RI 1XWWfV IRXU FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV 5HVSRQGHQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR LQGLFDWH WKHLU GHJUHH RI SUHIHUUHG DSSOLFDWLRQ RI HDFK FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLF DV DQ DSSURDFK WR WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI WKH FKDQJHVf WKH\ GHHPHG QHFHVVDU\ IRU WKH VLWXDWLRQ SUHVHQWHG 2Q WKH VXUYH\ IROORZLQJ HDFK K\SRWKHWLFDO FKDQJH VLWXDWLRQ UHVSRQGHQWV UDWHG HDFK WDFWLF RQ D RQH f WR ILYH f VFDOH ZLWK UHSUHVHQWLQJ D QHYHU DSSOLFDEOH DSSURDFK DQG LQGLFDWLQJ DQ DOZD\V DSSOLFDEOH DSSURDFK DV DQ LQGLFDWLRQ RI WKHLU SUHIHUHQFH IRU WKDW WDFWLF DV DQ DSSURDFK WR WKH FKDQJHVf WKH\ VDZ QHFHVVDU\

PAGE 25

'DWD &ROOHFWLRQ 7KH LQVWUXPHQW ZDV PDLOHG WR WKH WKUHH JURXSV RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV IURP WKH LQVWLWXWLRQV VHOHFWHG IRU WKH VWXG\ 7KHUH ZHUH D WRWDO RI UHVSRQGHQWV VHOHFWHG IRU HDFK JURXS RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV IURP WKH LQVWLWXWLRQV LQFOXGHG LQ WKH VWXG\ $ OHWWHU $SSHQGL[ )f IURP -DPHV / :DWWHQEDUJHU 'LUHFWRU RI WKH ,QVWLWXWH RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD DQG -DPHV & *ULPP 'LUHFWRU RI +RXVLQJ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD DQG IRUPHU 3UHVLGHQW RI WKH $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &ROOHJH DQG 8QLYHUVLW\ +RXVLQJ 2IILFHUV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO DQG DQ HQGRUVHPHQW IURP WKH 5HVHDUFK DQG ,QIRUPDWLRQ &RPPLWWHH RI $&8+2, ZHUH DOO LQFOXGHG ZLWK WKH VXUYH\ $ OHWWHU $SSHQGL[ *f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f DQG WWHVWV ZHUH XVHG 7KH GDWD ZHUH DQDO\]HG WR GHWHUPLQH Df WKH RYHUDOO GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH WKUHH JURXSV RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII DV UHODWHG WR WKH SUHIHUUHG DSSOLFDWLRQ RI 1XWWfV WDFWLFV RI FKDQJH LQ DQ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH VHWWLQJ LQ FROOHJH DQG XQLYHUVLW\ KRXVLQJ DQG Ef WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DSSOLFDELOLW\ RI PRGHO DQG IXQFWLRQDO DUHDV RI PDQDJHPHQW 2UJDQL]DWLRQ RI WKH 6WXG\ 7KH LQWURGXFWLRQ DQG JHQHUDO RYHUYLHZ RI WKH VFRSH RI WKLV UHVHDUFK VWXG\ DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ &KDSWHU &KDSWHU ,, SUHVHQWV UHVHDUFK DQG OLWHUDWXUH UHOHYDQW WR SODQQHG FKDQJH

PAGE 26

DQG LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV LQ SRVWVHFRQGDU\ HGXFDWLRQDO DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DQG LQ D JHQHUDO PDQDJHULDO VHWWLQJ DV ZHOO DV IXUWKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ 1XWWfV IRXU PRGHOV RI FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV &KDSWHU ,,, GHVFULEHV WKH PHWKRGRORJ\ DQG GHVLJQ XVHG LQ WKH VWXG\ &KDSWHU ,9 SUHVHQWV WKH UHVXOWV DQG DQDO\VLV RI WKH GDWD &KDSWHU 9 FRQVLVWV RI D GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH UHVXOWV RI WKLV UHVHDUFK VWXG\

PAGE 27

&+$37(5 ,, 5(9,(: 2) 7+( /,7(5$785( 7KLV FKDSWHU ZLOO SURYLGH DQ RYHUYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH DV LW UHODWHV WR 1XWWfV PRGHO RI FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV DQG PDQDJHPHQW ZLWKLQ VWXGHQW KRXVLQJ $UHDV UHYLHZHG ZLOO LQFOXGH 1XWWfV PRGHO RI FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV WKH IXQFWLRQDO HOHPHQWV PDQDJHPHQW DQG SODQQHG FKDQJH 1XWWfV 0RGHO RI &KDQJH ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ 7DFWLFV 1XWW S f GHVFULEHG LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ DV D VHULHV RI VWHSV WDNHQ E\ UHVSRQVLEOH RUJDQL]DWLRQDO DJHQWV LQ SODQQHG FKDQJH SURFHVVHV WR HOLFLW FRPSOLDQFH QHHGHG WR LQVWDOO FKDQJHV 3UHYLRXV UHVHDUFK KDV UHSRUWHG PDQ\ IDLOXUHV LQ WKH DUHD RI LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ 1XWW f 7KHVH IDLOXUHV DUH JHQHUDOO\ DWWULEXWDEOH WR f LQGLYLGXDOV RU JURXSV ZKR DWWHPSW WR PDLQWDLQ UHODWLRQVKLSV VXVWDLQ H[LVWLQJ SURFHGXUHV WR UHWDLQ FRQWURO RYHU YDOXHG DFWLYLWLHV WKDW ZRXOG EH DOWHUHG DQG f WR PLVXQGHUVWDQGLQJV RU GLVDJUHHPHQWV DERXW H[SHFWHG EHQHILWV 1XWW S f 6XFFHVV RI FKDQJH DFWLYLWLHV WKHQ LV GHSHQGHQW RQ WKH PDQDJHUfV DELOLW\ WR QHJDWH UHGLUHFW RU FRQWDLQ WKH DWWLWXGHV DQGRU DFWLYLWLHV WKDW WHQG WR REVWUXFW RU LQKLELW WKH GHVLUHG FKDQJH 7KH SXUSRVH RI 1XWWfV UHVHDUFK ZDV WKUHHIROG WR LGHQWLI\ DQG GHVFULEH VSHFLILF FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ VWUDWHJLHV WR HVWDEOLVK UHODWLYH VXFFHVV RI WKRVH VWUDWHJLHV DQG WR LGHQWLI\ WKH FRQGLWLRQV XQGHU ZKLFK WKHVH WDFWLFV DUH XVHG 1XWWfV 5HVHDUFK 1XWW GHYLVHG D UHVHDUFK VWXG\ FHQWHUHG DURXQG FDVH VWXGLHV RI VHUYLFH W\SH RUJDQL]DWLRQV VXFK DV KRVSLWDOV JRYHUQPHQW RU QRQSURILW DJHQFLHV FKDULWLHV DQG SURIHVVLRQDO

PAGE 28

VRFLHWLHV 7KH RUJDQL]DWLRQV LQ WKH VWXG\ ZHUH ZLGHO\ GLVSHUVHG LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV DQG &DQDGD 1XWW FRQWDFWHG WKH FKLHI H[HFXWLYH ILQDQFLDO RU RSHUDWLQJ RIILFHU RI HDFK FRPSDQ\ LQ WKH VWXG\ DQG UHTXHVWHG WKDW WKH\ SDUWLFLSDWH E\ SURILOLQJ RQH RI WKHLU RUJDQL]DWLRQfV FKDQJHV 7KH RQO\ JXLGHOLQH LPSRVHG E\ WKH VWXG\ ZDV WKDW WKH FKDQJH KDG WR KDYH KDG VLJQLILFDQW LPSRUWDQFH WR WKHLU RUJDQL]DWLRQV 0XOWLSOH LQWHUYLHZV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG ZLWK WKUHH LQGLYLGXDOV LQ WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKH FKLHI H[HFXWLYH ILQDQFLDO RU RSHUDWLQJ RIILFHU LQWHUYLHZV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG ZLWK WKH VSRQVRU RI WKH SODQQHG FKDQJH DFWLYLW\ WKH DFWXDO PDQDJHU FKDUJHG ZLWK WKH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU WKH FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQf DQG RQH RWKHU H[HFXWLYH DOVR LQWLPDWHO\ IDPLOLDU ZLWK WKH FKDQJH 7KH LQWHUYLHZV ZHUH ERWK VWUXFWXUHG DQG XQVWUXFWXUHG ,QWHUYLHZV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG XQWLO DOO SHUWLQHQW LQIRUPDWLRQ ZDV JDWKHUHG DQG DOO GLIIHUHQFHV DPRQJ WKH H[HFXWLYHV ZHUH UHFRQFLOHG )URP WKH VWXG\ DQDO\VLV 1XWW ZDV DEOH WR GLVWLQJXLVK IRXU W\SHV RI LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV DQG ZLWKLQWDFWLFV YDULDWLRQV WKDW ZHUH XVHG LQ b RI WKH FDVHV 1XWWfV ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ 7DFWLFV 1XWW JURXSHG DQG QDPHG WKH IRXU WDFWLF FDWHJRULHV DV Df LQWHUYHQWLRQ Ef SDUWLFLSDWLRQ Ff SHUVXDVLRQ DQG Gf HGLFW 1XWW f ,Q DOO VLWXDWLRQV WKH FHQWUDO WKHPH RI WKH WDFWLF LV WKH DFWLRQ RI WKH FKDQJH DJHQW DQG WKH VWHSV WKDW LQGLYLGXDO WDNHV LQ LQLWLDWLQJ DQG SURFHVVLQJ WKH SODQQHG FKDQJH ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ EY ,QWHUYHQWLRQ ,Q LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ E\ LQWHUYHQWLRQ 1XWW f LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH PDQDJHUVSRQVRU LQLWLDWHV WKH FKDQJH SURFHVV 7KH PDQDJHUVSRQVRU EHFDPH WKH FHQWUDO DGYRFDWH IRU WKH FKDQJH FUHDWLQJ WKH UDWLRQDOHV RU QHHG IRU WKH FKDQJH DFWLRQ LQ WKH PLQGV RI WKRVH NH\ LQGLYLGXDOV LQYROYHG 1XWW f 7KH PDQDJHUVSRQVRU DFWLYHO\ DSSUDLVHV WKH FXUUHQW SHUIRUPDQFH OHYHOV DQG GHPRQVWUDWHV WKH SHUIRUPDQFH LQDGHTXDFLHV E\ DSSO\LQJ WKH QHZ

PAGE 29

VWDQGDUGV WKXV FUHDWLQJ UDWLRQDOHV IRU FKDQJH 1XWW f DOVR GHVFULEHG WKH PDQDJHUVSRQVRU XVLQJ D YDULHW\ RI WHFKQLTXHV WR MXVWLI\ QHZ SHUIRUPDQFH VWDQGDUGV 7KH PDQDJHU PLJKW XVH GHVFULSWLRQV RI KRZ FXUUHQW SUDFWLFHV PLJKW EH LPSURYHG RU FLWH RWKHU RUJDQL]DWLRQV RI FRPSDUDEOH PLVVLRQV ZLWK PRUH IDYRUDEOH SHUIRUPDQFH OHYHOV DV H[DPSOHV RI KRZ SURSRVHG FKDQJHV PLJKW EH RI EHQHILW 7KH XVH RI LQSXW IURP LQWHUHVWHG SDUWLHV ZDV DOVR D IHDWXUH RI LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ E\ LQWHUYHQWLRQ DV GHVFULEHG E\ 1XWW f 7DVN IRUFHV PLJKW EH FDOOHG RQ WR SURYLGH LGHDV DFW DV VRXQGLQJ ERDUGV RU WR SURYLGH IHHGEDFN DV FKDQJHV ZHUH SXW LQWR SODFH 7KH PDQDJHUVSRQVRU UHWDLQV IXOO FRQWURO RI WKH FKDQJH SURFHVV ZLWK WKH DXWKRULW\ WR YHWR DQ\ VXJJHVWLRQV E\ XVHUV RU WDVN IRUFHV 2QFH WKH PDQDJHUVSRQVRU KDV DGHTXDWHO\ MXVWLILHG DQG FRQVXOWHG DERXW WKH SURSRVHG FKDQJHV WKH FKDQJHV DUH LQVWDOOHG DQG PRQLWRUHG IRU SHUIRUPDQFH RU VLWXDWLRQDO LPSURYHPHQW 1XWW f IRXQG WKDW WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ E\ LQWHUYHQWLRQ WDFWLF ZDV XVHG LQ b 1XWW f DQG b 1XWW f RI WKH FDVHV KH H[DPLQHG ZLWK D FKDQJH DGRSWLRQ VXFFHVV UDWH RI b LQ ERWK VWXG\ UHSRUWV ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ EY 3DUWLFLSDWLRQ 1XWW f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f 7KH GHOHJDWLRQ E\ WKH PDQDJHUVSRQVRU RI UHVSRQVLELOLW\ WR WKH WDVN IRUFH RU DVVLJQHG GHYHORSPHQW JURXS RIWHQ FDUULHV ZLWK LW VSHFLILHG FRQVWUDLQWV H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG SRVVLEOH VXSSRUW SHUVRQQHO WR DLG LQ WKH FKDQJH GHYHORSPHQW SURFHVV 7KH JURXSV DUH H[SHFWHG WR FRPH WR FRQVHQVXV DERXW NH\ IHDWXUHV DQG WKH JURXS OHDGHU GRHV QRW KDYH YHWR SRZHU RYHU JURXS GHFLVLRQV 7KH

PAGE 30

NH\ IHDWXUH RI WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ E\ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ ZDV WKH IDFW WKDW WKH GHVLJQDWHG WDVN IRUFH RU GHYHORSPHQW JURXS ZDV JLYHQ GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ DXWKRULW\ LQ WKH FKDQJH SURFHVV 1XWW f 2QFH WKH SODQQHG FKDQJHVf DUH LQVWDOOHG SHUIRUPDQFH PRQLWRULQJ IRU LPSURYHPHQW LV FDUULHG RXW 1XWW f GHVFULEHG IRXU W\SHV RI SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ GLIIHUHQWLDWHG E\ WKH OHYHO RI SDUWLFLSDWLRQ E\ VWDNHKROGHUV &RPSUHKHQVLYH SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LV GHVFULEHG DV GHOHJDWLRQ RI WKH FKDQJH GHYHORSPHQW SURFHVV WR D IXOO\ UHSUHVHQWDWLYH WDVN IRUFH ZLWK D PHPEHUVKLS WKDW DFFRXQWV IRU DOO LPSRUWDQW VWDNHKROGHUV 7KLV DSSURDFK KDV WKH JUHDWHVW FRRSWDWLYH SRWHQWLDO RZLQJ WR WKH EUHDGWK RI WKH UROH DQG H[WHQW RI SDUWLFLSDWLRQ 1XWW S f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f &RPSOHWH SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LV VHHQ DV D OHVV FRRSWDWLYH DSSURDFK EHFDXVH RI WKH UHVWULFWLRQV SODFHG RQ WKH WDVN IRUFH 1XWWfV VWXG\ IRXQG WKDW MXVW b RI WKH SDUWLFLSDWLRQ WDFWLF FDVHV ZHUH RI WKLV W\SH $ WKLUG W\SH RI SDUWLFLSDWLRQ GHVFULEHG E\ 1XWW LV WHUPHG GHOHJDWHG SDUWLFLSDWLRQ $V WKH QDPH LPSOLHV GHOHJDWHG SDUWLFLSDWLRQ DOORZV IRU WKH WDVN IRUFH RU FKDQJH GHYHORSPHQW JURXS PHPEHUVKLS WR FRQVLVW RI UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV RI WKH NH\ VWDNHKROGHU LQWHUHVWV ,Q 1XWWfV VWXG\ GHOHJDWHG SDUWLFLSDWLRQ DFFRXQWHG IRU b RI WKH SDUWLFLSDWLRQ FDVHV 7KH OHDVW FRRSWDWLYH IRUP RI SDUWLFLSDWLRQ DQG WKH IRXUWK GHVFULEHG E\ 1XWW LV WRNHQ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ 7RNHQ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ JURXSV JHQHUDOO\ GR QRW DGHTXDWHO\ UHSUHVHQW WKH VWDNHKROGHU JURXSV DQG DUH QRW DEOH WR FRQYLQFH WKRVH JURXSV RI WKH QHFHVVLW\ RI WKH GHVLUHG FKDQJHV ,Q KLV VWXG\ 1XWW IRXQG WKDW b RI WKH SDUWLFLSDWLRQ WDFWLF FDVHV KDG WKHVH

PAGE 31

FKDUDFWHULVWLFV +H DOVR IRXQG WKDW WKLV PRGHO RI SDUWLFLSDWLRQ ZDV XQDEOH WR FDXVH WKH DGRSWLRQ RI DQ\ FKDQJHV 1XWW UHSRUWHG WKDW LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ E\ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ ZDV REVHUYHG LQ b 1XWW f DQG b 1XWW f RI WKH FDVHV VWXGLHG ZLWK DQ RYHUDOO FKDQJH DGRSWLRQ VXFFHVV UDWH RI b UHSRUWHG IURP WKH VWXG\ DQG b LQ WKH VWXG\ ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ KY 3HUVXDVLRQ 7KH NH\ HOHPHQW LQ LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ E\ SHUVXDVLRQ DV GHVFULEHG E\ 1XWW f LV WKH ODFN RI HIIRUW E\ WKH PDQDJHUVSRQVRU WR PDQDJH WKH FKDQJH SURFHVV DQG PRQLWRU WKH SURJUHVV 7KH PDQDJHUVSRQVRU LPSOLFLWO\ RU H[SOLFLWO\ GHOHJDWHV WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI LGHDV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK SULRULW\ VWUDWHJLF GLUHFWLRQV WR WHFKQLFDO VWDII RU FRQVXOWDQWV 1XWW S f 7KH SHUVXDVLRQ WDFWLF EHJLQV ZLWK WKH PDQDJHUVSRQVRU VWDWLQJ RU GHVFULELQJ WKH QHHGV RU RSSRUWXQLWLHV 7KH FKDQJH GHYHORSPHQW SURFHVV LV WKHQ UHOLQTXLVKHG WR H[SHUWV RU FRQVXOWDQWV 7KHUH LV YHU\ OLWWOH LQWHUYHQWLRQ RU UHYLHZ E\ WKH PDQDJHUVSRQVRU GXULQJ WKH FKDQJH GHYHORSPHQW SURFHVV ,Q 1XWWfV SHUVXDVLRQ WDFWLF WKH H[SHUWV GHYHORS LGHDV IRU WKH FKDQJH SURFHVV DQG DWWHPSW WR VHOO WKHVH LGHDV WR WKH PDQDJHUVSRQVRU 7KH PDQDJHUVSRQVRU EHFRPHV DFWLYH LQ WKH FKDQJH SURFHVV RQO\ DIWHU WKH H[SHUWV KDYH VROG WKHLU LGHDV DQG VRPHWLPHV SUHVHQWHG H[WHQVLYH GRFXPHQWDWLRQ 2QFH FRQYLQFHG RI WKH FKDQJH SURFHVV GHYHORSHG E\ WKH H[SHUWV WKH FKDQJHV DUH LQLWLDWHG ZLWK IROORZXS PRQLWRULQJ DQG HYDOXDWLRQ RI SHUIRUPDQFH LPSURYHPHQWV 1XWW f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

PAGE 32

GHYHORSPHQW SURFHVV ZHUH FXUUHQW PHPEHUV RI WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ RU ZHUH IURP RXWVLGH RI WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ ,Q WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ E\ SHUVXDVLRQ FDVHV VWXGLHG E\ 1XWW b RI WKH H[SHUW FRQVXOWDQWV ZHUH LQWHUQDO WR WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ ZLWK WKH UHPDLQLQJ b KLUHG FRQVXOWDQWV ,Q KLV VWXGLHV 1XWW IRXQG b 1XWW f DQG b 1XWW f RFFXUUHQFH RI LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ E\ SHUVXDVLRQ ZLWK D FKDQJH DGRSWLRQ VXFFHVV UDWH RI b UHSRUWHG IURP WKH VWXG\ DQG b IURP WKH VWXG\ ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ E\ SHUVXDVLRQ ZDV WKH PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ HPSOR\HG RI DOO WKH WDFWLFV UHSRUWHG E\ 1XWW EXW ZDV QRW UHSRUWHG DV WKH PRVW VXFFHVVIXO IRU WKH VXFFHVVIXO DGRSWLRQ RI WKH SODQQHG FKDQJH ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ KY (GLFW 1XWW f GHVFULEHG LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ E\ HGLFW DV D FKDQJH SURFHVV LQ ZKLFK WKH PDQDJHUVSRQVRU XVHV SHUVRQDO DQG SRVLWLRQDO SRZHU WR LPSRVH WKH FKDQJH GHVLUHG 7KH PDQDJHUVSRQVRU UHWDLQV FRPSOHWH FRQWURO RI WKH FKDQJH SURFHVV VHHNLQJ OLWWOH RU QR LQSXW IURP VWDNHKROGHUV 1R SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LV HPSOR\HG DW DOO 1XWW f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fV UHVHDUFK UHYHDOHG D XVH UDWH RI b f DQG b f IURP KLV FDVH

PAGE 33

VWXGLHV ZLWK DQ RYHUDOO VXFFHVVIXO FKDQJH DGRSWLRQ UDWH RI b UHSRUWHG IURP WKH VWXG\ DQG b LQ WKH VWXG\ 7DEOH EHORZ GLVSOD\V D VXPPDU\ RYHUYLHZ RI WKH IRXU LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV DQG WKH NH\ IHDWXUHV RI HDFK

PAGE 34

7DEOH 6XPPDU\ RI 1XWWfV &KDQJH ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ 7DFWLFV 1XWW f 7DFWLF )UHTXHQF\ RI 2FFXUUHQFH .H\ )HDWXUHV 6XPPDU\ RI .H\ 6WHSV ,QWHUYHQWLRQ ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ b $ PDQDJHU LV GHOHJDWHG DXWKRULW\ WR FRQWURO D SODQQLQJ SURFHVV *URXSV DUH XVHG WR RIIHU DGYLFH ZKLFK PDQDJHU FDQ YHWR 1HZ QRUPV XVHG WR LGHQWLI\ SHUIRUPDQFH SUREOHPV LQ V\VWHP WKDW WKH VWUDWHJ\ LV WR FKDQJH 1HZ QRUPV MXVWLILHG ,OOXVWUDWH KRZ SHUIRUPDQFH FDQ EH LPSURYHG )RUPXODWH SODQ 6KRZ KRZ SODQ LPSURYHV SHUIRUPDQFH 3DUWLFLSDWLRQ ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ b *URXS FDQ VSHFLI\ SODQ IHDWXUHV ZLWKLQ SUHVWDWHG FRQVWUDLQWV 6WDII LV DVVLJQHG WR VXSSRUW WKH SODQQLQJ JURXS 0DQDJHU VWLSXODWHV VWUDWHJLF QHHGV DQG RSSRUWXQLWLHV )RUP SODQQLQJ JURXS E\ VHOHFWLQJ VWDNHKROGHUV 'HOHJDWH SODQQLQJ WR WKH JURXS DQG VWDWH LQWHQWLRQV REMHFWLYHV DQG FRQVWUDLQWVf )RUPXODWH SODQ &RRSWDWLRQ RI NH\ SHRSOH

PAGE 35

7DEOH FRQWLQXHGf 7DFWLF )UHTXHQF\ RI 2FFXUUHQFH .H\ )HDWXUHV 6XPPDU\ RI .H\ 6WHSV 3HUVXDVLRQ ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ b 'HPRQVWUDWLRQV RI YDOXH $Q H[SHUW PDQDJHV WKH SODQQLQJ SURFHVV 0DQDJHU VWLSXODWHV VWUDWHJLF QHHGV DQG RSSRUWXQLWLHV $XWKRUL]H DQ H[SHUW WR GHYHORS LGHDV UHVSRQVLYH WR WKH VWUDWHJ\ )RUPXODWH SODQ ([SHUW XVHV SHUVXDVLRQ WR VHOO PDQDJHU RQ SODQfV YDOXH DV D UHVSRQVH WR D VWUDWHJLF SULRULW\ (GLFW ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ b 7KH PDQDJHU DQG VWDII VKDUH SURFHVV PDQDJHPHQW 0DQDJHU XVHV SRVLWLRQ SRZHU WR LPSOHPHQW WKH SODQ 6SRQVRU VWLSXODWHV VWUDWHJLF QHHGV DQG RSSRUWXQLWLHV )RUPXODWH SODQ 0DQDJHU LVVXHV D GLUHFWLYH ZKLFK FDOOV IRU SODQ DGRSWLRQ 3ODQQHG &KDQJH DQG &KDQJH ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ 3ODQQHG FKDQJH DQG WKH YDULRXV WKHRULHV VWUDWHJLHV DQG WHFKQLTXHV DUH UHIHUUHG WR XQGHU VHYHUDO GLIIHUHQW QDPHV LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH SDUWLFXODU DUHD RI FKDQJH IRFXV WKH EUHDGWK RI WKDW IRFXV RU EHFDXVH RI WKH SDUWLFXODU WKHRUHWLFDO EDVH KHOG E\ WKH DXWKRU 3ODQQHG FKDQJH DQG WKH PDQ\ DVSHFWV RI UHODWHG WHFKQLTXHV DUH RIWHQ IRXQG UHIHUUHG WR DV RUJDQL]DWLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW %XUNH &RQQHU t /DNH f DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQDO FKDQJH %XUNH )RVWHU 7XVKPDQ f 0XFK RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH GHVFULELQJ

PAGE 36

GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ SODQQHG FKDQJH DQG WKH YDULRXV RWKHU FKDQJHUHODWHG DVSHFWV RI PDQDJHPHQW KDV EHHQ GHYHORSHG LQ WKH PDQDJHPHQW DQG EXVLQHVV MRXUQDOV DQG ERRNV %ODHVVHU f )HZ ZULWHUV RI OLWHUDWXUH IURP WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV DUHD GHYRWH WKHPVHOYHV WR WKH VWXG\ RI PDQDJHULDO LVVXHV %ODHVVHU S f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f GHVFULEHG RUJDQL]DWLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW DV DQ DSSURDFK WR SODQQHG FKDQJH WKDW PXVW UHFHLYH WKH DWWHQWLRQ RI DGPLQLVWUDWRUV RI LQVWLWXWLRQV RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW LV GHILQHG E\ )UHQFK DQG %HOO S [LYf DV WKH QDPH JLYHQ WR WKH HPHUJLQJ EHKDYLRUDO VFLHQFH WKDW VHHNV WR LPSURYH RUJDQL]DWLRQV WKURXJK SODQQHG ORQJUDQJH HIIRUWV IRFXVHG RQ WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQfV FXOWXUH DQG LWV KXPDQ DQG VRFLDO SURFHVVHV $V UHODWHG WR VWXGHQW DIIDLUV .XK f FRQWHVWHG WUDGLWLRQDO WKRXJKWV UHJDUGLQJ RUJDQL]DWLRQDO FKDQJH DQG HPSKDVL]HG WKH FULWLFDO QDWXUH RI KDYLQJ NQRZOHGJH UHJDUGLQJ HQYLURQPHQWDO IDFWRUV DQG WKH LPSDFW WKH\ KDYH RQ UHODWLRQVKLSV 7KHUH DUH WKUHH WUDGLWLRQDO YLHZV WKDW ZHUH FKDOOHQJHG E\ .XK Df PXWXDOO\ DJUHHG XSRQ JRDOV DUH WKH EDVLV XSRQ ZKLFK XQLWV DQG LQVWLWXWLRQV DUH RUJDQL]HG Ef UDWLRQDO GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ LV WKH EDVLV RI DFWLRQ DQG Ff FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DPRQJ DOO OHYHOV RI DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQ LV FOHDU DQG XQGHUVWRRG E\ DOO OHYHOV RU LV WLJKWO\ FRXSOHG .XK UHODWHG WKDW VSHFLILF DQG UDWLRQDO JRDOV DUH QRW UHODWHG GLUHFWO\ WR ZKDW DFWXDOO\ RFFXUV DQG SHUVRQDO JRDOV QRW JURXS RU RUJDQL]DWLRQDO JRDOV DUH WKH FHQWUDO IRFXV IRU DFWLRQ 3ROLWLFDO DQG HFRQRPLF IDFWRUV DUH DOVR FRQWULEXWRU\ HOHPHQWV LQ GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ

PAGE 37

DORQJ ZLWK WKRVH IDFWRUV WKDW DUH UDWLRQDO DQG V\VWHPDWLF +H DOVR UHODWHG WKDW FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DQG PXWXDO XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI DOO LVVXHV DUH QRW FOHDU DQG VWXGHQW DIIDLUV LV QRW KLJKO\ LQWHUGHSHQGHQW DV D XQLW RU DV SDUW RI D ODUJH RUJDQL]DWLRQ 0DQ\ VLPLODU FRQVWUXFWV RI FRPPRQ HOHPHQWV IRXQG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHJDUGLQJ FKDQJH ZHUH LQFRUSRUDWHG E\ 3ODWR f 6KH GHVFULEHG IRXU SULQFLSOH DVVXPSWLRQV DERXW FKDQJH DV IROORZV Df WKH UDWLRQDO GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ PRGHO LV XVHG Ef WKH FROOHJLDO PRGHO RI DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ LV XVHG LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ Ff FXUUHQW DQG IXWXUH DYDLODELOLW\ RI PRQHWDU\ UHVRXUFHV IRU VWXGHQW DIIDLUV DUH QRW H[DPLQHG DQG Gf WKHUH LV DQ XQFRQVFLRXV VKLIW IURP WKH LQGLYLGXDO WR WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ %DVHG RQ WKHVH IRXU EDVLF DVVXPSWLRQV 3ODWR f UHFRPPHQGHG VWUDWHJLHV IRU WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SURIHVVLRQ 7KH ILYH VWUDWHJLHV ZHUH Df EH DZDUH RI ILVFDO UHVRXUFHV Ef YLHZ VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW DV D SROLF\ Ff LQYROYH VWXGHQWV LQ LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ Gf H[SUHVV WKH JRDOV RI WKH SURIHVVLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH SROLWLFDO PRGHO RI DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DQG Hf LQFOXGH HGXFDWLRQDO SROLWLFV DQG SODQQLQJ GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ WKHRU\ RUJDQL]DWLRQDO WKHRU\ DQG SROLF\ VWXGLHV LQ WKH WUDLQLQJ RI VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW SURIHVVLRQDOV 7KH JRDOV RI WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SURIHVVLRQ KDYH UHFHLYHG PXFK JUHDWHU GHILQLWLRQ LQ UHFHQW \HDUV 6WUDQJH f 7R DFFRPSOLVK WKHVH JRDOV DV LGHQWLILHG LW LV LPSRUWDQW WKDW DQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH LQVWLWXWLRQDO G\QDPLFV WKDW DIIHFW FKDQJH EH WDNHQ LQWR FRQVLGHUDWLRQ 6WUDQJH f FLWHG WKH ZRUN RI +DJH DQG $LNHQ f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

PAGE 38

ILQDO VWDJH URXWLQL]DWLRQ LV WKH DFFHSWDQFH RI WKH FKDQJH UHSUHVHQWHG E\ WKH QHZ DFWLYLW\ RU SURJUDP 7KH HIIHFW RI WKH FKDQJH GHSHQGV RQ VHYHQ YDULDEOHV ZLWKLQ DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQ 7KHVH YDULDEOHV DUH IRUPDOL]DWLRQ FHQWUDOL]DWLRQ SURGXFWLRQ HIILFLHQF\ FRPSOH[LW\ VWUDWLILFDWLRQ DQG MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ 7KH WKHRUHWLFDO IUDPHZRUN SUHVHQWHG E\ +DJH DQG $LNHQ LV YLHZHG E\ 6WUDQJH f DV D YLDEOH RQH LQ ZKLFK VWXGHQW DIIDLUV SURIHVVLRQDOV FDQ V\VWHPDWLFDOO\ DSSURDFK FKDQJH ZLWKLQ DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQ &KDQJH ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ &KDQJH FKDQJH PDQDJHPHQW WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI FKDQJH RUJDQL]DWLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW DQG WKH WHFKQLTXHV RI RUJDQL]DWLRQDO FKDQJH DUH DOO SRSXODU WRSLFV RI PDQ\ MRXUQDO DUWLFOHV DQG ERRNV $OO RI WKHVH SKUDVHV UHODWH WR FKDQJH LQ VRPH IDVKLRQ &KDQJH LV GHVFULEHG DV D WHQGHQF\ WRZDUG PRYHPHQW JURZWK GHYHORSPHQW SURFHVV %HQQLV %HQQH mIH &KLQ f 'DO]LHO DQG 6FKRRQRYHU S f GHILQHG FKDQJH LQ DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQ DV D SODQQHG RU XQSODQQHG UHVSRQVH RI DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQ WR SUHVVXUHV /LQGTXLVW S f GHILQHG FKDQJH DV WKH PRGLILFDWLRQ RI GHOHWLRQ RI RU DGGLWLRQ WR DWWLWXGHV DQG EHKDYLRUV H[LVWLQJ LQ D SHUVRQ JURXS RUJDQL]DWLRQ RU ODUJHU V\VWHP +HUVH\ DQG %ODQFKDUG f UHIHUUHG WR RQH RI WKH FODVVLFDO ZRUNV RQ FKDQJH E\ .XUW /HZLQ f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

PAGE 39

:KHQ LQGLYLGXDOV DUH SURYLGHG ZLWK UROH PRGHOV IURP ZKRP WKH\ PD\ OHDUQ WKH QHZ EHKDYLRU SDWWHUQV WKLV LV FDOOHG WKH LGHQWLILFDWLRQ PHWKRG RI FKDQJLQJ 7KH LQGLYLGXDOV OHDUQ WR HPXODWH WKH EHKDYLRU RI WKH PRGHO :LWK LQWHUQDOL]DWLRQ WKH LQGLYLGXDOV OHDUQ WR FKDQJH E\ DGDSWLQJ WR QHZ EHKDYLRUV WKDW DUH GHPDQGHG RI WKHP LI WKH\ DUH WR RSHUDWH VXFFHVVIXOO\ LQ WKH QHZ HQYLURQPHQW 7KLV PHWKRG LQYROYHV WKH LQIOXHQFH RI SHUVRQDO FRSLQJ EHKDYLRUV DQG VNLOOV +HUVH\ DQG %ODQFKDUG f UHODWHG WKDW WKH SURFHVVHV RI LGHQWLILFDWLRQ DQG LQWHUQDOL]DWLRQ DUH QRW PXWXDOO\ H[FOXVLYH FRXUVHV RI DFWLRQ EXW FRQVWUXFWLYH FKDQJH HIIRUWV FDQ EH JHQHUDWHG DV D UHVXOW RI FRPELQLQJ WKH WZR LQWR DQ HIIHFWLYH VWUDWHJ\ IRU FKDQJH 5HIUHH]LQJ LV WKH SURFHVV WKURXJK ZKLFK WKH QHZO\ DFTXLUHG EHKDYLRU EHFRPHV LQWHJUDWHG DV SDWWHUQHG EHKDYLRU LQWR WKH LQGLYLGXDOfV FKDUDFWHU )RU QHZ EHKDYLRU WR EH PDLQWDLQHG LW PXVW EH OHDUQHG DQG LQFRUSRUDWHG :KHQ WKLV GRHV QRW KDSSHQ ROG EHKDYLRUV RU SDWWHUQV UHHPHUJH 7R NHHS QHZ EHKDYLRUV IURP GLPLQLVKLQJ D SDWWHUQ RI UHLQIRUFHPHQW PXVW RFFXU +HUVH\ DQG %ODQFKDUG f SRLQWHG RXW WKDW WZR W\SHV RI UHLQIRUFHPHQW FDQ RFFXU FRQWLQXRXV DQG LQWHUPLWWHQW ,QGLYLGXDOV OHDUQ IDVWHU ZLWK FRQWLQXRXV UHLQIRUFHPHQW EXW UHWXUQ WR ROG SDWWHUQV TXLFNHU RQFH LW LV UHPRYHG :LWK LQWHUPLWWHQW UHLQIRUFHPHQW WKH H[WLQFWLRQ RI QHZ EHKDYLRUV RFFXUV PXFK VORZHU +HUVH\ t %ODQFKDUG f 'UDZLQJ RQ WKH ZRUN RI 5RQDOG +DYHORFN /LQGTXLVW GHVFULEHG IRXU GLIIHUHQW FKDQJH VWUDWHJLHV WKDW OHDG RUJDQL]DWLRQV DQG WKH SHRSOH LQ WKHP WR FKDQJH %ULFNHWWR f 7KHVH IRXU VWUDWHJLHV DUH UDWLRQDO SODQQLQJ VRFLDO LQWHUDFWLRQ KXPDQ SUREOHP VROYLQJ DQG SROLWLFDO DSSURDFKHV /LQGTXLVW f SODFHG WKH IRXU PRGHOV ZLWKLQ DQ RYHUDOO FKDQJH VWUDWHJ\ HPSKDVLV PRGHO 7KH PRGHO GHVFULEHV WKUHH PDMRU SDUWV WR D SODQQHG FKDQJH Df FUHDWLQJ WKH FKDQJH PHVVDJH Ef FRPPXQLFDWLQJ WKH FKDQJH PHVVDJH DQG Ff UHFHLYLQJ DQG DFWLQJ XSRQ WKH FKDQJH PHVVDJH /LQGTXLVW SODFHG WKH UDWLRQDO SODQQLQJ PRGHO ZLWKLQ WKH FKDQJH HPSKDVLV RI FUHDWLQJ WKH FKDQJH PHVVDJH +H SODFHG WKH VRFLDO LQWHUDFWLRQ PRGHO ZLWKLQ WKH FKDQJH

PAGE 40

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f 7KH KXPDQ SUREOHP VROYLQJ PRGHO LV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO DVSHFWV KXPDQV DVVRFLDWH ZLWK FKDQJH 7KH QRUPDO UHVLVWDQFH WR FKDQJH FDQQRW EH RYHUORRNHG LQ GHYHORSLQJ FKDQJH WDFWLFV 7KHVH UHVLVWDQFH IDFWRUV PD\ FRPH IURP IHDUV SUHMXGLFHV GLVWUXVW DQG YDULRXV DQ[LHWLHV 7R RYHUFRPH WKHVH SV\FKRORJLFDO IDFWRUV D VHQVH RI RSHQQHVV FROODERUDWLRQ DQG FRQVHQVXVVHHNLQJ WHFKQLTXHV PXVW EH HPSOR\HG %ULFNHWWR f 7KH SROLWLFDO DSSURDFK YLHZV WKH FRPSRQHQWV RI EXLOGLQJ FRDOLWLRQV DPRQJ LQIOXHQWLDO SHUVRQV DQG JURXSV DV DQ HIIHFWLYH PHWKRG RI EULQJLQJ DERXW FKDQJH 2QFH WKHVH FRDOLWLRQV DUH LQ SODFH WKH SROLWLFDO DSSURDFK VHHNV WR JHQHUDWH DQ DXWKRULWDWLYH GHFLVLRQ WKDW ZLOO UHTXLUH RWKHUV WR FRPSO\ ZLWK WKH FKDQJH GHVLUHG &KDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKLV DSSURDFK DUH QHJRWLDWLRQ FRPSURPLVH DQG LQIOXHQWLDO JDWHNHHSHUV %HQQLV %HQQH DQG &KLQ S f GHILQHG SODQQHG FKDQJHV DV WKRVH DWWHPSWV DW FKDQJHV WKDW DUH FRQVFLRXV GHOLEHUDWH DQG LQWHQGHG DW OHDVW RQ WKH SDUW RI RQH RU PRUH

PAGE 41

DJHQWV UHODWHG WR WKH FKDQJH DWWHPSW %HQQLV %HQQH DQG &KLQ GHILQHG WKUHH FDWHJRULHV RI FKDQJH VWUDWHJLHV Df HPSLULFDOUDWLRQDO Ef QRUPDWLYHUHHGXFDWLYH DQG Ff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f WKHVH VWUDWHJLHV XVXDOO\ KDYH DV WKHLU EDVLV SROLWLFDO DQG HFRQRPLF VDQFWLRQV RI SRZHU :LWK WKH SRZHUFRHUFLYH VWUDWHJLHV WKH XVH RI SROLWLFDO RU HFRQRPLF SRZHU LV XVHG WR DWWHPSW WR FUHDWH WKH GHVLUHG FKDQJH )RVWHU f GHVFULEHG ILYH PRGHOV RI FKDQJH ,Q KLV WHUPV WKHVH PRGHOV DUH UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RI WKH VLQJOH FRQWH[W IRU RUJDQL]DWLRQDO FKDQJH KRZHYHU LQ UHDOLW\ FKDQJH SURJUDPV DQG SURFHVVHV RI FKDQJH ERUURZ WR VRPH GHJUHH IURP HDFK RI WKH PRGHOV 7KH ILYH PRGHOV DUH Df UDWLRQDOPDQDJHULDO Ef SHUVRQDOWKHUDSHXWLF Ff RUJDQLFV\VWHPV Gf SROLWLFDOHFRQRPLF DQG Hf V\PEROLF DQG FXOWXUDO DVSHFWV 7KH UDWLRQDOPDQDJHULDO VWUDWHJ\ LV EDVHG RQ WKH DVVXPSWLRQ WKDW WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ LV PDGH XS RI UDWLRQDO LQGLYLGXDOV WKDW WKHVH LQGLYLGXDOV ZLOO EH FRQYLQFHG E\ HYLGHQFH

PAGE 42

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fV IRFXV RQ WKH FKDQJH ZLWKLQ LQGLYLGXDOV LQFOXGHV VXFK WRSLF DUHDV DV VHOIFRQFHSW SHUVRQDOLW\ WUXVW GHYHORSPHQW YDOXHV FODULILFDWLRQ DQG FRQIOLFW PDQDJHPHQW )RVWHU f GHVFULEHG WKH ZRUN RI /HZLQ f DV D FODVVLF H[DPSOH RI WKH SHUVRQDO WKHUDSHXWLF FKDQJH PRGHO ,Q WKLV UHIHUHQFH KH UHIHUUHG WR /HZLQfV FKDQJH PRGHO RI XQIUHH]LQJ FKDQJLQJ DQG UHIUHH]LQJ 7KH WKLUG PRGHO GHVFULEHG E\ )RVWHU f LV RUJDQLFV\VWHPV 7KLV PRGHO LV EDVHG RQ WZR EDVLF SUHPLVHV Df RUJDQL]DWLRQV DUH VLPLODU WR RUJDQLF V\VWHPV LQ WKDW WKH\ JURZ GHYHORS FKDQJH DQG GLH DQG Ef RUJDQL]DWLRQV DUH V\VWHPV FRPSRVHG RI LQWHUUHODWHG DQG LQWHUGHSHQGHQW VXEV\VWHPV 7KLV PRGHO VXSSRUWV WKH EDVLF SUHPLVHV RI WKH ODUJHVW PRYHPHQW WR LPSOHPHQW FKDQJH LQ RUJDQL]DWLRQV RUJDQL]DWLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW )RVWHU f 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW H[DPLQHV WKUHH OHYHOV RI DFWLYLW\ ZLWKLQ DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQ WKH LQWHUSHUVRQDO WKH VXEV\VWHP DQG WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ DV D XQLW 7KRXJK RUJDQL]DWLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW DQG KHQFH WKH RUJDQLFV\VWHPV PRGHO LV VLPLODU LQ FRQFHSW WR WKH UDWLRQDO

PAGE 43

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

PAGE 44

0DQDJHPHQW )XQFWLRQV 7KH VWXG\ RI PDQDJHPHQW DV D VFLHQFH LV JHQHUDOO\ VHHQ DV EHJLQQLQJ ZLWK WKH ZRUN SXEOLVKHG LQ RI )UHGHULFN : 7D\ORU .RRQW] t 2f'RQQHOO SS f 7D\ORU GHYHORSHG WKH WKHRU\ RI 6FLHQWLILF 0DQDJHPHQW DURXQG WKH LGHD WKDW DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DQG PDQDJHPHQW WHFKQLTXHV FRXOG EH VWXGLHG MXVW OLNH DQ\ RWKHU VFLHQFH 3ULQFLSOHV RI PDQDJHPHQW FRXOG EH GHYHORSHG WKDW ZHUH VHSDUDWHG IURP KXPDQ HPRWLRQ DQG LQYROYHPHQW .RRQW] t 2f'RQQHOO SS /RQJHQHFNHU f 7R GHYHORS KLV WKHRU\ 7D\ORU FRQGXFWHG WLPH DQG PRWLRQ VWXGLHV RI YDULRXV WDVNV EHLQJ SHUIRUPHG LQ LQGXVWU\ DQG EXVLQHVV VHHNLQJ WR GLVFRYHU WKH RQH EHVW ZD\ RI SHUIRUPLQJ WKDW WDVN 7D\ORU EHOLHYHG WKDW PXFK ZDV ZDVWHG GXH WR LQHIILFLHQF\ RI ERWK ODERU DQG PDQDJHPHQW .RRQW] t 2f'RQQHOO SS /RQJHQHFNHU f 7KH IXQGDPHQWDO SULQFLSOHV RI 7D\ORU ZHUH .RRQW] t 2f'RQQHOO SS f 5HSODFLQJ UXOHV RI WKXPE ZLWK VFLHQFH RUJDQL]HG NQRZOHGJHf 2EWDLQLQJ KDUPRQ\ LQ JURXS DFWLRQ UDWKHU WKDQ GLVFRUG $FKLHYLQJ FRRSHUDWLRQ RI KXPDQ EHLQJV UDWKHU WKDQ FKDRWLF LQGLYLGXDOLVP :RUNLQJ IRU PD[LPXP RXWSXW UDWKHU WKDQ UHVWULFWHG RXWSXW 'HYHORSLQJ DOO ZRUNHUV WR IXOOHVW H[WHQW IRU WKHLU RZQ DQG FRPSDQLHVf JRRG 0XFK RI WKH ZRUN FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH FRPPRQ RU XQLYHUVDO IXQFWLRQDO DUHDV RI PDQDJHPHQW UHYHDOHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH LV EDVHG XSRQ WKH ZRUN RI +HQUL )D\RO FRQVLGHUHG WR EH WKH IDWKHU RI PRGHUQ PDQDJHPHQW WKHRU\ .RRQW] t 2f'RQQHOO f )D\RO GHYHORSHG IRXUWHHQ JHQHUDO SULQFLSOHV RI PDQDJHPHQW WKDW KH GHULYHG IURP KLV REVHUYDWLRQV DQG H[SHULHQFHV DQG HYHQWXDOO\ HVWDEOLVKHG KLV IXQFWLRQDO HOHPHQWV RI PDQDJHPHQW )URP KLV REVHUYDWLRQV )D\RO IHOW WKDW DOO DFWLYLWLHV RI D JLYHQ HQWHUSULVH FRXOG EH JURXSHG LQWR VL[ EDVLF FDWHJRULHV f WHFKQLFDO SURGXFWLRQf f FRPPHUFLDO EX\LQJ VHOOLQJ DQG H[FKDQJHf

PAGE 45

f ILQDQFLDO VHDUFK IRU DQG RSWLPDO XVH RI FDSLWDOf f VHFXULW\ SURWHFWLRQ RI SURSHUW\f f DFFRXQWLQJ LQFOXGLQJ VWDWLVWLFVf DQG f PDQDJHULDO SODQQLQJ RUJDQL]LQJ FRPPDQG FRRUGLQDWLRQ DQG FRQWUROf .RRQW] t 2f'RQQHOO SS f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f )URP WKHVH SULQFLSOHV )D\RO GHYHORSHG KLV IXQFWLRQDO HOHPHQWV RI PDQDJHPHQW 7KH IXQFWLRQDO HOHPHQWV GHVFULEHG E\ KLP ZHUH SODQQLQJ RUJDQL]LQJ FRPPDQGLQJ FRRUGLQDWLQJ DQG FRQWUROOLQJ $JDLQ )D\RO FRQVLGHUHG WKHVH IXQFWLRQV WR EH XQLYHUVDO IXQFWLRQV WKDW DSSO\ QRW RQO\ WR EXVLQHVV RSHUDWLRQV EXW DOVR WR SROLWLFDO UHOLJLRXV HGXFDWLRQDO PLOLWDU\ DQG RWKHU HQWHUSULVHV .RRQW] t 2f'RQQHOO SS f $QRWKHU HDUO\ ZULWHU RQ WKH IXQFWLRQV RI D PDQDJHU ZDV /XWKHU *XOLFN *XOLFN VXSSRUWHG WKH ZRUN RI )D\RO E\ GHYHORSLQJ DQG SXEOLVKLQJ KLV RZQ GHVFULSWLYH OLVW RI PDQDJHULDO IXQFWLRQV WKDW ZDV PRGHOHG DORQJ WKH VDPH OLQHV DV )D\ROfV 0LQW]EHUJ f *XOLFNfV PRGHO ZDV FDOOHG 326'&25% DQ DFURQ\P GHYHORSHG IURP WKH ILUVW OHWWHU RI HDFK RI WKH HLJKW IXQFWLRQV *XOLFN GHVFULEHG 326'&25% LQ WKLV PDQQHU

PAGE 46

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f 0LQW]EHUJ SS f 0LQW]EHUJ f SRLQWHG RXW WKDW 326'&25% LV VWLOO XVHG WRGD\ DQG LQ IDFW FRQWLQXHV LQ D GRPLQDQW UROH LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH +RZHYHU 0LQW]EHUJ GLG QRW IXOO\ VXSSRUW )D\ROfV GHVFULSWLRQV QRU GLG KH VXSSRUW WKH GHVFULSWLRQV RI WKH 326'&25% PRGHO

PAGE 47

0LQW]EHUJ f +H EHOLHYHG WKDW WKH IXQFWLRQDO PRGHOV GLG QRW DGHTXDWHO\ GHVFULEH WKH UROHV RI D PDQDJHU WKHUHIRUH KH GHYHORSHG DQG SXEOLVKHG KLV RZQ VHW RI WHQ UROHV RI D PDQDJHU DV RSSRVHG WR IXQFWLRQV RI D PDQDJHU +LV WHQ UROHV ZHUH DVVHPEOHG LQWR WKUHH SULPDU\ JURXSV ODEHOHG LQWHUSHUVRQDO UROHV LQIRUPDWLRQDO UROHV DQG GHFLVLRQDO UROHV 0LQW]EHUJfV WHQ UROHV ZLWKLQ JURXSV DUH GHVFULEHG E\ /RQJHQHFNHU SS f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

PAGE 48

1HJRWLDWRU $V D QHJRWLDWRU D PDQDJHU EDUJDLQV ZLWK FXVWRPHUV RU RWKHU RXWVLGHUV RU LQVLGHUV &RQWHPSRUDU\ DXWKRUV KDYH FRQWLQXHG WR GLYLGH PDQDJHULDO IXQFWLRQV LQWR FDWHJRULHV EDVHG RQ WKH ZRUN RI WKH HDUO\ DXWKRUV 7UHZDWKD DQG 1HZSRUW f $ IRXU IXQFWLRQ PRGHO LV VXSSRUWHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH E\ VHYHUDO DXWKRUV *LEVRQ HW DO .RRQW] t 2f'RQQHOO /RQJHQHFNHU 0HVFRQ HW DO 7UHZDWKD t 1HZSRUW f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

PAGE 49

&KDSWHU 6XPPDU\ 7KLV FKDSWHU SUHVHQWHG DQ RYHUYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHODWHG WR 1XWWfV 0RGHO DQG UHVHDUFK SODQQHG FKDQJH DQG LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ DQG WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI IXQFWLRQDO DUHDV RI PDQDJHPHQW 7KH QH[W FKDSWHU GHVFULEHV WKH PHWKRGRORJ\ DQG GHVLJQ GHYHORSHG DQG XVHG WR IDFLOLWDWH WKH VWXG\

PAGE 50

&+$37(5 ,,, 5(6($5&+ '(6,*1 $1' 0(7+2'2/2*< 5HVHDUFK 2EMHFWLYH 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH SHUFHLYHG DSSOLFDELOLW\ RI FKDQJH WDFWLFV DV UHSUHVHQWHG E\ 1XWWf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fV LQWHUYHQWLRQ WDFWLF WR VWXGHQW KRXVLQJ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH WDVNV VWUXFWXUHG DFURVV D IRXU IXQFWLRQ PRGHO RI PDQDJHPHQW

PAGE 51

+\SRWKHVLV 7KHUH LV QR GLIIHUHQFH DPRQJ WKH WKUHH JURXSV RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII LQ WKHLU SHUFHLYHG DSSURSULDWHQHVV IRU WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI 1XWWfV SDUWLFLSDWLRQ WDFWLF WR VWXGHQW KRXVLQJ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH WDVNV VWUXFWXUHG DFURVV D IRXU IXQFWLRQ PRGHO RI PDQDJHPHQW +\SRWKHVLV 7KHUH LV QR GLIIHUHQFH DPRQJ WKH WKUHH JURXSV RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII LQ WKHLU SHUFHLYHG DSSURSULDWHQHVV IRU WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI 1XWWfV SHUVXDVLRQ WDFWLF WR VWXGHQW KRXVLQJ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH WDVNV VWUXFWXUHG DFURVV D IRXU IXQFWLRQ PRGHO RI PDQDJHPHQW +\SRWKHVLV 7KHUH LV QR GLIIHUHQFH DPRQJ WKH WKUHH JURXSV RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII LQ WKHLU SHUFHLYHG DSSURSULDWHQHVV IRU WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI 1XWWf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

PAGE 52

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f DQG WKDW KRXVHG VLQJOH VWXGHQWV RU PRUH LQ WKHLU RQFDPSXV IDFLOLWLHV $&8+2, LV DQ LQWHUQDWLRQDO RUJDQL]DWLRQ GHVLJQHG WR UHSUHVHQW IRVWHU GHYHORS SURPRWH DQG LPSURYH WKH ILHOG RI FROOHJH DQG XQLYHUVLW\ KRXVLQJ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ ,W KDV D WRWDO LQWHUQDWLRQDO PHPEHUVKLS RI QHDUO\ VFKRROV UHSUHVHQWLQJ SXEOLF SULYDWH UHOLJLRXV DQG SURSULHWDU\ LQVWLWXWLRQV RI ERWK WKH DQG \HDU W\SH 7KH WRWDO QXPEHU RI LQVWLWXWLRQV TXDOLI\LQJ DV WKH DFFHVVLEOH SRSXODWLRQ ZDV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH $&8+2, 'LUHFWRU\ 6DXWWHU f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

PAGE 53

LPPHGLDWHO\ VXERUGLQDWH WR WKH FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHU 6XERUGLQDWH KRXVLQJ RIILFHUV VHOHFWHG DV UHVSRQGHQWV IRU WKH VWXG\ ZHUH GHWHUPLQHG EDVHG RQ WKH MRE WLWOH OLVWHG LQ WKH $&8+2 'LUHFWRU\ LQ WKH RUGHU RI Df DVVRFLDWH GLUHFWRU RU HTXLYDOHQW WLWOH Ef DVVLVWDQW GLUHFWRU RU HTXLYDOHQW WLWOH DQG Ff FRRUGLQDWRU RU HTXLYDOHQW WLWOH ,Q FDVHV RI PXOWLSOH KROGHUV RI VLPLODU WLWOHV D UDQGRP VHOHFWLRQ ZDV LQLWLDWHG WR VHOHFW WKH UHVSRQGHQW 'HYHORSPHQW RI WKH ,QVWUXPHQW 7KH LQWHQW RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR H[DPLQH WKH SUHIHUUHG WDFWLFV RI WKH WKUHH JURXSV RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII XVLQJ 1XWWfV LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV DFURVV WKH UDQJH RI PDQDJHULDO WDVNV SHUIRUPHG E\ FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHUV 7R GHYHORS WKH LQVWUXPHQWDWLRQ D VWUXFWXUH RU EDVLV IRU WKH PDQDJHULDO IXQFWLRQV RI D FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHU ZDV QHHGHG $Q H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHYHDOHG QXPHURXV GHVFULSWLRQV RI WKH IXQFWLRQV RI PDQDJHPHQW 0XFK RI WKH ZRUN GHVFULEHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH LV EDVHG XSRQ WKH ZRUN RI +HQUL )D\RO FRQVLGHUHG WR EH WKH IDWKHU RI PRGHUQ PDQDJHPHQW WKHRU\ .RRQW] t 2f'RQQHOO f )D\RO GHYHORSHG IRXUWHHQ JHQHUDO SULQFLSOHV RI PDQDJHPHQW WKDW KH GHULYHG IURP KLV REVHUYDWLRQV DQG H[SHULHQFHV )URP WKHVH IRXUWHHQ SULQFLSOHV KH GHVFULEHG WKH IXQFWLRQDO HOHPHQWV RI PDQDJHPHQW DV SODQQLQJ RUJDQL]LQJ FRPPDQGLQJ FRRUGLQDWLQJ DQG FRQWUROOLQJ )D\RO FRQVLGHUHG WKHVH IXQFWLRQV WR EH XQLYHUVDO IXQFWLRQV WKDW DSSO\ QRW RQO\ WR EXVLQHVV RSHUDWLRQV EXW DOVR WR SROLWLFDO UHOLJLRXV HGXFDWLRQDO PLOLWDU\ DQG RWKHU HQWHUSULVHV .RRQW] t 2f'RQQHOO f )RU WKLV VWXG\ D IRXU SDUW GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH IXQFWLRQV RI PDQDJHPHQW ZDV XVHG 7KH IRXU IXQFWLRQ PRGHOV ZHUH VXSSRUWHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH E\ VHYHUDO DXWKRUV *LEVRQ HW DO .RRQW] t 2f'RQQHOO /RQJHQHFNHU 0HVFRQ HW DO 7UHZDWKD t 1HZSRUW f 7KH IRXU IXQFWLRQDO HOHPHQWV RI PDQDJHPHQW XVHG LQ IRU WKLV VWXG\ ZHUH SODQQLQJ RUJDQL]LQJ OHDGLQJ DQG FRQWUROOLQJ 7KHVH IRXU IXQFWLRQDO HOHPHQWV SURYLGHG D PRGHO WKDW

PAGE 54

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

PAGE 55

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f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fV PRGHO RI IRXU FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV LQWHUYHQWLRQ HGLFW SHUVXDVLRQ DQG SDUWLFLSDWLRQ 'UDZLQJ RQ 1XWWfV UHVHDUFK 1XWW f D GHVFULSWLRQ RI HDFK WDFWLF ZDV GHYHORSHG VXPPDUL]LQJ WKDW WDFWLF LQWR D UHODWLYHO\ VKRUW SDUDJUDSK ZLWK WHUPLQRORJ\ FKDUDFWHULVWLF WR WKH UROH RI WKH FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHU 7KHVH IRXU WDFWLFV DQG WKH GHWDLOHG GHVFULSWLYH SDUDJUDSKV ZHUH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW DV D JXLGH WR UHVSRQGHQWV DV WR WKH LQWHQGHG PHDQLQJ RI WKH IRXU LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV 7KH IRXU VXPPDULHV ZHUH SUHVHQWHG WR D SDQHO RI WKUHH H[SHUW MXGJHV IRU UHYLHZ $SSHQGL[ 'f 7KH MXGJHV UHYLHZHG WKH VXPPDUL]HG GHVFULSWLRQV WR GHWHUPLQH LI WKH GHVFULSWLRQV DFFXUDWHO\ UHSUHVHQWHG 1XWWfV RULJLQDO PRGHO FRQWHQW $ UHZULWH RI WKH HGLFW WDFWLF ZDV VXJJHVWHG DORQJ ZLWK RWKHU PLQRU FKDQJHV RU H[SDQVLRQV RI WKH RWKHU WKUHH 5HYLVLRQV ZHUH FRPSOHWHG UH

PAGE 56

UHYLHZHG DQG YDOLGDWHG 7KH ILQDO GHVFULSWLYH SDUDJUDSKV IRU WKH IRXU FKDQJH WDFWLFV ZHUH DV IROORZV ,QWHUYHQWLRQ 7KH FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHU &+2f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f LQ SHUIRUPDQFH RU WKH VLWXDWLRQ (GLFW 7KH FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHU &+2f DV VSRQVRU RI WKH SODQQHG FKDQJH LGHQWLILHV WKH QHHGV DQG RSSRUWXQLWLHV +HVKH ZHLJKV WKH DOWHUQDWLYHV DQG VHOHFWV WKH QHFHVVDU\ VWHSV WR DFFRPSOLVK WKH FKDQJH 7KH &+2 UHWDLQV FRPSOHWH FRQWURO RI WKH GHYHORSPHQW DQG LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI WKH QHHGHG FKDQJH /LWWOH RU QR LQSXW LV VRXJKW RU GHVLUHG IURP RWKHUV RQ WKH VWDII +HVKH LVVXHV GLUHFWLYHV WKDW VWLSXODWH WKH FKDQJHVf WR EH LQLWLDWHG &RPSOLDQFH ZLWK WKH FKDQJH LV DQWLFLSDWHG DQG H[SHFWHG &+2 PRQLWRUV FKDQJH IRU SHUIRUPDQFH RU VLWXDWLRQ LPSURYHPHQWVf 3HUVXDVLRQ 7KH FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHU &+2f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f

PAGE 57

3DUWLFLSDWLRQ 7KH FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHU &+2f DV VSRQVRU RI WKH SODQQHG FKDQJH LQLWLDWHV WKH SURFHVV E\ LGHQWLI\LQJ WKH QHHGV DQGRU RSSRUWXQLWLHV +HVKH GHOHJDWHV VXEVWDQWLDO UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU JXLGLQJ FKDQJH GHYHORSPHQW SURFHVVHV WR WDVN IRUFHV FRQVLVWLQJ RI DSSURSULDWH VWDII DQGRU VWXGHQWV SURYLGLQJ WKHP ZLWK H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG FRQVWUDLQWV 7KH 7DVN )RUFHV GHYHORS UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV DQG WKH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV DUH WKHQ LPSOHPHQWHG E\ WKH &+2 DQG PRQLWRUHG IRU SHUIRUPDQFH RU VLWXDWLRQ LPSURYHPHQWVf 5HVSRQGHQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR LQGLFDWH WKHLU GHJUHH RI SUHIHUUHG DSSOLFDWLRQ RI HDFK FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLF DV DQ DSSURDFK WR WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI WKH FKDQJH WKH\ GHHPHG QHFHVVDU\ IRU WKH VLWXDWLRQ SUHVHQWHG 2Q WKH VXUYH\ IROORZLQJ HDFK K\SRWKHWLFDO FKDQJH VLWXDWLRQ UHVSRQGHQWV UDWHG WKHLU SUHIHUHQFH IRU HDFK WDFWLF RQ D RQH f WR ILYH f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

PAGE 58

0DQDJHPHQW $SSHQGL[ ,f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f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f IURP -DPHV / :DWWHQEDUJHU 'LUHFWRU RI WKH ,QVWLWXWH RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD DQG -DPHV & *ULPP 'LUHFWRU RI +RXVLQJ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD DQG IRUPHU 3UHVLGHQW RI WKH $VVRFLDWLRQ RI &ROOHJH DQG 8QLYHUVLW\ +RXVLQJ 2IILFHUV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO DQG DQ HQGRUVHPHQW IURP WKH 5HVHDUFK DQG ,QIRUPDWLRQ &RPPLWWHH RI $&8+2 ZHUH LQFOXGHG ZLWK WKH VXUYH\ PDLOHG WR KRXVLQJ VWDII $ OHWWHU RI HQGRUVHPHQW $SSHQGL[

PAGE 59

*f IURP & $UWKXU 6DQGHHQ 9LFH 3UHVLGHQW IRU 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD ZDV VXEVWLWXWHG IRU WKH OHWWHU IURP -DPHV & *ULPP LQ WKRVH VXUYH\V PDLOHG WR FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV 7KH OHWWHUV GHVFULEHG WKH QDWXUH RI WKH VWXG\ DQG WKH QHHG WR VXSSRUW WKH UHVHDUFK 6HOIDGGUHVVHG VWDPSHG UHWXUQ HQYHORSHV ZHUH SURYLGHG WR IDFLOLWDWH WKH UHWXUQ RI WKH VXUYH\ 5HVSRQGHQWV ZHUH JLYHQ D VSHFLILF WDUJHW GDWH E\ ZKLFK WKH LQVWUXPHQW VKRXOG EH UHWXUQHG $ IROORZXS OHWWHU $SSHQGL[ +f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

PAGE 60

7KH GDWD JHQHUDWHG E\ WKH UHVSRQVHV WR WKH VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW ZHUH DQDO\]HG XVLQJ WKH 6WDWLVWLFDO $QDO\VLV 6\VWHP 6$6f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f SURFHGXUHV XQGHU WKH JHQHUDO OLQHDU PRGHO */0f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f GLYLGHG E\ WKH QXPEHU RI FRPSDULVRQV PDGH ZKLFK ZDV WKUHH f

PAGE 61

&KDSWHU 6XPPDU\ 7KLV FKDSWHU SURYLGHG DQ RYHUYLHZ RI WKH GHYHORSPHQW GHVLJQ DQG PHWKRGRORJ\ RI WKLV VWXG\ 7KH RXWOLQH FRQVLVWV RI Df UHVHDUFK REMHFWLYH Ef UHVHDUFK SRSXODWLRQ DQG VDPSOH Ff GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW Gf GHVLJQ DQG SULQWLQJ RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW Hf DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW DQG If WUHDWPHQW RI WKH GDWD &KDSWHU ,9 SUHVHQWV WKH UHVXOWV DQG WKH DQDO\VLV RI WKH GDWD

PAGE 62

&+$37(5 ,9 35(6(17$7,21 $1' $1$/<6,6 2) 7+( '$7$ 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH SHUFHLYHG DSSURSULDWHQHVV RI FKDQJH WDFWLFV DV UHSUHVHQWHG E\ 1XWWf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f DQG WKDW KRXVHG VLQJOH VWXGHQWV RU PRUH LQ WKHLU RQFDPSXV IDFLOLWLHV $&8+2, LV DQ LQWHUQDWLRQDO RUJDQL]DWLRQ GHVLJQHG WR UHSUHVHQW IRVWHU GHYHORS SURPRWH DQG LPSURYH WKH ILHOG RI FROOHJH DQG XQLYHUVLW\ KRXVLQJ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ ,W KDV D WRWDO LQWHUQDWLRQDO PHPEHUVKLS RI QHDUO\ VFKRROV UHSUHVHQWLQJ ERWK DQG \HDU SXEOLF SULYDWH UHOLJLRXV DQG SURSULHWDU\ LQVWLWXWLRQV 7KH WRWDO QXPEHU RI LQVWLWXWLRQV TXDOLI\LQJ DV WKH DFFHVVLEOH SRSXODWLRQ ZDV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH $&8+2, 'LUHFWRU\ 6DXWWHU

PAGE 63

f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f DVVRFLDWH GLUHFWRU RU HTXLYDOHQW WLWOH Ef DVVLVWDQW GLUHFWRU RU HTXLYDOHQW WLWOH DQG Ff FRRUGLQDWRU RU HTXLYDOHQW WLWOH ,Q FDVHV RI PXOWLSOH KROGHUV RI VLPLODU WLWOHV D UDQGRP VHOHFWLRQ ZDV LQLWLDWHG WR VHOHFW RQH UHVSRQGHQW 2I WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII VXUYH\HG WKHUH ZHUH D WRWDO RI bf UHWXUQV 2I WKDW WRWDO HOHYHQ LQVWUXPHQWV ZHUH UHMHFWHG 2I WKH HOHYHQ UHMHFWHG VHYHQ VXUYH\V ZHUH FRPSOHWHG E\ LQDSSURSULDWH OHYHO RI VWDII WZR ZHUH UHWXUQHG WRR ODWH WR EH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH DQDO\VLV DQG WZR ZHUH UHWXUQHG LPSURSHUO\ FRPSOHWHG 7KH WRWDO XVHDEOH UHWXUQ ZDV bf 7KLV QXPEHU ZDV XVHG LQ WKH DQDO\VLV 7KH UHWXUQ UDWH EUHDNGRZQ E\ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII JURXS UHYHDOHG WKDW WKH FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUVf UHVSRQVH WRWDO ZDV bf WKH FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHUVf UHVSRQVH WRWDO ZDV bf DQG WKH KRXVLQJ VWDII UHVSRQGHG ZLWK D WRWDO RI bf RI WKH WRWDO UHWXUQV $QDO\VHV RI WKH 'DWD ,Q WKLV VHFWLRQ WKH SURFHVV WKDW ZDV XVHG WR WHVW WKH K\SRWKHVHV VWDWHG LQ &KDSWHU LV GLVFXVVHG ,Q DGGLWLRQ DQ RYHUYLHZ RI WKH SURFHGXUHV DQG D VSHFLILF VHFWLRQ RQ HDFK K\SRWKHVLV LV SUHVHQWHG

PAGE 64

7KH LQVWUXPHQW XVHG $ 6WXG\ RI &KDQJH ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ LQ 6WXGHQW +RXVLQJ 0DQDJHPHQW $SSHQGL[ ,f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f WR ILYH DOZD\V DSSOLFDEOHf VFDOH :LWK WKLV VFDOH WKH FORVHU WKH PHDQ VFRUH IRU WKH WDFWLF ZDV WR ILYH WKH PRUH DSSOLFDEOH WKH WDFWLF ZDV SHUFHLYHG WR EH WR PDQDJHULDO VLWXDWLRQV DQG WKH FORVHU WKH PHDQ VFRUH RI WKH WDFWLF ZDV WR RQH WKH OHVV DSSOLFDEOH LW ZDV SHUFHLYHG WR EH $ RQHZD\ DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH $129$f XVLQJ WKH JHQHUDO OLQHDU PRGHO */0f IRU XQEDODQFHG GDWD ZDV XVHG WR WHVW HLJKW RI WKH K\SRWKHVHV $ VLPSOH WWHVW ZDV XVHG WR WHVW K\SRWKHVLV 7KHVH DQDO\VHV DOORZHG WKH UHVHDUFKHU WR FRPSDUH WKH PHDQV RI WKH WKUHH JURXSV LQYROYHG LQ WKH VWXG\ 7KH SURFHGXUH LQYROYHG WKH FRPSXWDWLRQ RI DQ )YDOXH RU 7 YDOXH IRU HDFK DQDO\VLV DORQJ ZLWK WKH SUREDELOLW\ RI LWV RFFXUUHQFH XQGHU WKH QXOO K\SRWKHVLV 7KH OHYHO RI VWDWLVWLFDO VLJQLILFDQFH IRU WKLV VWXG\ ZDV VHW DW 7R GHWHUPLQH WKH DFFHSWDQFH RU UHMHFWLRQ RI WKH QXOO K\SRWKHVLV WKH FDOFXODWHG SUREDELOLW\ ZDV FRPSDUHG WR WKH OHYHO RI VLJQLILFDQFH ,I WKH SUREDELOLW\ YDOXH ZDV OHVV WKDQ WKH QXOO K\SRWKHVLV ZDV UHMHFWHG ,I WKH SUREDELOLW\ YDOXH FDOFXODWHG ZDV JUHDWHU WKDQ WKH OHYHO WKH QXOO K\SRWKHVLV ZDV UHWDLQHG 6HYHUDO GLIIHUHQW */0 DQDO\VHV ZHUH XVHG DV ZHOO DV VLPSOH WWHVWV 7R WHVW IRU GLIIHUHQFHV DPRQJ WKH WKUHH OHYHOV RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII HDFK RI WKH IRXU FKDQJH WDFWLFV ZDV WHVWHG XVLQJ HDFK RI WKHP DV D GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH /DVWO\ HDFK RI WKH IRXU WDFWLFV ZDV WHVWHG

PAGE 65

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

PAGE 66

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

PAGE 67

7DEOH FRQWf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

PAGE 68

LQWHUYHQWLRQ DV WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH DQG DGPLQLVWUDWLYH SRVLWLRQ DV WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH 7KH DQDO\VLV ZDV GHVLJQHG WR WHVW K\SRWKHVLV +\SRWKHVLV 7KHUH LV QR GLIIHUHQFH DPRQJ WKH WKUHH JURXSV RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII LQ WKHLU SHUFHLYHG DSSURSULDWHQHVV IRU WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI 1XWWf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

PAGE 69

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f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

PAGE 70

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f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

PAGE 71

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

PAGE 72

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

PAGE 73

FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ 7KH DQDO\VLV ZDV FRQGXFWHG XVLQJ WKH HGLFW WDFWLF DV WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH DQG DGPLQLVWUDWLYH SRVLWLRQ DV WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH 7KH DQDO\VLV ZDV GHVLJQHG WR WHVW K\SRWKHVLV +\SRWKHVLV 7KHUH LV QR GLIIHUHQFH DPRQJ WKH WKUHH JURXSV RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII LQ WKHLU SHUFHLYHG DSSURSULDWHQHVV IRU WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI 1XWWf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

PAGE 74

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

PAGE 75

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

PAGE 76

7DEOH FRQWf /HDGLQJ *URXS 1 0HDQ 6' )9DOXH 3UREDELOLW\ ,PSOLFDWLRQV &KLHI 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV 2IILFHUV &KLHI +RXVLQJ 2IILFHUV +RXVLQJ 3URIHVVLRQDO 6WDII QRQVLJQLILFDQW &RQWUROOLQJ *URXS 1 0HDQ 6' )9DOXH 3UREDELOLW\ ,PSOLFDWLRQV &KLHI 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV 2IILFHUV &KLHI +RXVLQJ 2IILFHUV +RXVLQJ 3URIHVVLRQDO 6WDII QRQVLJQLILFDQW 3DUWLFLSDWLRQ 7DFWLF :LWKLQ (DFK 0DQDJHPHQW )XQFWLRQ $ */0 DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH WHVW ZDV XVHG WR GHWHUPLQH LI VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV H[LVWHG DPRQJ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV DGPLQLVWUDWRUV LQ WKHLU SHUFHLYHG DSSURSULDWHQHVV IRU WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH SDUWLFLSDWLRQ WDFWLF IRU FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ ZLWKLQ HDFK RI WKH VSHFLILF PDQDJHPHQW DUHDV 7KH DQDO\VLV ZDV FRQGXFWHG XVLQJ WKH SDUWLFLSDWLRQ WDFWLF DV WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH DQG DGPLQLVWUDWLYH SRVLWLRQ DV WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH 7KH DQDO\VLV ZDV GHVLJQHG WR WHVW K\SRWKHVLV

PAGE 77

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

PAGE 78

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

PAGE 79

7DEOH FRQWf &RQWUROOLQJ *URXS 1 0HDQ 6' )9DOXH 3UREDELOLW\ ,PSOLFDWLRQV &KLHI 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV 2IILFHUV &KLHI +RXVLQJ 2IILFHUV +RXVLQJ 3URIHVVLRQDO 6WDII QRQVLJQLILFDQW

PAGE 80

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

PAGE 81

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

PAGE 82

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f UHYHDOHG VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKH FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV DQG ERWK WKH FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHUV DQG SURIHVVLRQDO OHYHO KRXVLQJ VWDII ,Q ERWK RI WKHVH FRPSDULVRQV WKH QXOO K\SRWKHVLV ZDV UHMHFWHG 7KH FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV DQG FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHUV FRPSDULVRQ UHYHDOHG DQ )YDOXH RI ZLWK D UHVXOWLQJ SYDOXH RI 7KH FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV DQG SURIHVVLRQDO KRXVLQJ VWDII FRPSDULVRQ VKRZHG DQ )YDOXH RI ZLWK D SYDOXH RI 7KH FRPSDULVRQ EHWZHHQ WKH FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHUV DQG WKH SURIHVVLRQDO OHYHO KRXVLQJ VWDII UHYHDOHG DQ )YDOXH RI ZLWK D UHVXOWLQJ SYDOXH RI )RU WKLV FRPSDULVRQ WKHUH ZDV QR VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH WKHUHIRUH WKH QXOO K\SRWKHVLV ZDV QRW UHMHFWHG 7KH ILQDO SDLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQ IRU WKH SHUVXDVLRQ WDFWLF ZDV ZLWKLQ WKH FRQWUROOLQJ PDQDJHPHQW IXQFWLRQ 7DEOH f $V ZLWK WKH OHDGLQJ IXQFWLRQ VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH VKRZQ WR H[LVW EHWZHHQ WKH FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV DQG ERWK WKH FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHUV DQG SURIHVVLRQDO OHYHO KRXVLQJ VWDII 7KH UHVSHFWLYH FRPSDULVRQ UHVXOWV

PAGE 83

UHYHDOHG )YDOXHV RI DQG ZLWK SYDOXHV RI DQG )RU WKHVH WZR FRPSDULVRQV WKH QXOO K\SRWKHVLV ZDV UHMHFWHG 7KH FRPSDULVRQ EHWZHHQ WKH FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHUV DQG WKH SURIHVVLRQDO KRXVLQJ VWDII GLG QRW VKRZ D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH 7KH )YDOXH IRU WKH FRPSDULVRQ ZDV DQG WKH SYDOXH ZDV )RU WKLV FRPSDULVRQ WKH QXOO K\SRWKHVLV ZDV QRW UHMHFWHG 7DEOH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH IRU WKH $SSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH 3HUVXDVLRQ 7DFWLF E\ 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV *URXSV :LWKLQ (DFK )XQFWLRQDO $UHD RI 0DQDJHPHQW 3ODQQLQJ *URXS 1 0HDQ 6' )9DOXH 3UREDELOLW\ ,PSOLFDWLRQV &KLHI 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV 2IILFHUV &KLHI +RXVLQJ 2IILFHUV +RXVLQJ 3URIHVVLRQDO 6WDII QRQVLJQLILFDQW 2UJDQL]LQJ *URXS 1 0HDQ 6' )9DOXH 3UREDELOLW\ ,PSOLFDWLRQV &KLHI 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV 2IILFHUV &KLHI +RXVLQJ 2IILFHUV +RXVLQJ 3URIHVVLRQDO 6WDII VLJQLILFDQW

PAGE 84

7DEOH FRQWf /HDGLQJ *URXS 1 0HDQ 6' )9DOXH 3UREDELOLW\ ,PSOLFDWLRQV &KLHI 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV 2IILFHUV &KLHI +RXVLQJ 2IILFHUV +RXVLQJ 3URIHVVLRQDO 6WDII VLJQLILFDQW &RQWUROOLQJ *URXS 1 0HDQ 6' )9DOXH 3UREDELOLW\ ,PSOLFDWLRQV &KLHI 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV 2IILFHUV &KLHI +RXVLQJ 2IILFHUV +RXVLQJ 3URIHVVLRQDO 6WDII VLJQLILFDQW

PAGE 85

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

PAGE 86

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

PAGE 87

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

PAGE 88

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

PAGE 89

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

PAGE 90

7DEOH FRQWf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f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

PAGE 91

&KLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV GLIIHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQ WKHLU DSSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH SHUVXDVLRQ WDFWLF IRU WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI SODQQHG FKDQJH IURP ERWK FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHUV DQG SURIHVVLRQDO OHYHO KRXVLQJ VWDII &KLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHUV DQG SURIHVVLRQDO OHYHO KRXVLQJ VWDII GLG QRW GLIIHU VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQ WKHLU DSSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH SHUVXDVLRQ WDFWLF :LWK UHJDUG IRU WKH HGLFW WDFWLF IRU WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI SODQQHG FKDQJH QRQH RI WKH WKUHH JURXSV GLIIHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQ WKHLU SHUFHLYHG DSSURSULDWHQHVV IRU LWV DSSOLFDWLRQ :KHQ WKH SDUWLFLSDWLRQ WDFWLF ZDV HYDOXDWHG ZLWKLQ HDFK RI WKH IXQFWLRQDO DUHDV RI PDQDJHPHQW GLIIHUHQFHV WR WKH OHYHO RI VLJQLILFDQFH ZHUH VKRZQ WR H[LVW EHWZHHQ WKH FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHU DQG WKH SURIHVVLRQDO OHYHO KRXVLQJ VWDII LQ WKH PDQDJHPHQW DUHDV RI RUJDQL]LQJ DQG FRQWUROOLQJ 1R RWKHU VLJQLILFDQFH ZDV VKRZQ 7KH FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV GLIIHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQ WKHLU SHUFHLYHG DSSURSULDWHQHVV IRU WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH SHUVXDVLRQ WDFWLF ZLWK ERWK WKH FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHUV DQG WKH KRXVLQJ SURIHVVLRQDO VWDII LQ WKH PDQDJHPHQW DUHDV RI RUJDQL]LQJ OHDGLQJ DQG FRQWUROOLQJ 7KH FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV DQG WKH FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHUV GLIIHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWKLQ WKH SODQQLQJ PDQDJHPHQW IXQFWLRQ 1R VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH GHWHFWHG IRU WKLV WDFWLF EHWZHHQ WKH FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHU DQG KRXVLQJ SURIHVVLRQDO VWDII 7KH WKUHH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV DGPLQLVWUDWLYH JURXSV GLG QRW GLIIHU VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQ WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH DSSURSULDWHQHVV RI WKH HGLFW WDFWLF IRU FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ ZLWKLQ DQ\ RI WKH IRXU PDQDJHPHQW DUHDV &KDSWHU ,9 KDV SUHVHQWHG VSHFLILF LQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ WKH DQDO\VLV FRQGXFWHG RQ WKH GDWD IURP WKH VWXG\ &KDSWHU 9 SUHVHQWV D VXPPDU\ RI WKH VWXG\ ILQGLQJV FRQFOXVLRQV DQG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV DQG LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU IXWXUH UHVHDUFK

PAGE 92

&+$37(5 9 6800$5< $1' &21&/86,216 7KLV FKDSWHU FRQVLVWV RI ILYH VHFWLRQV 7KH ILUVW VHFWLRQ LV DQ RYHUYLHZ RI WKH GHYHORSPHQW DQG GHVLJQ RI WKH VWXG\ 7KH VHFRQG VHFWLRQ SUHVHQWV D VXPPDU\ RI WKH PDMRU ILQGLQJV ,Q WKH WKLUG VHFWLRQ FRQFOXVLRQV IURP WKH VWXG\ DUH LGHQWLILHG ,Q WKH IRXUWK VHFWLRQ D GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH FRQFOXVLRQV DUH SUHVHQWHG 7KH ILIWK VHFWLRQ LQFOXGHV VRPH SRVVLEOH LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU IXWXUH UHVHDUFK 'HYHORSPHQW RI WKH 6WXG\ 3XUSRVH 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH SHUFHLYHG DSSURSULDWHQHVV RI FKDQJH WDFWLFV DV UHSUHVHQWHG E\ 1XWWf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fV FDOO IRU H[FHOOHQFH WKURXJK VWXGHQW LQYROYHPHQW $VWLQ f QXPHURXV QDWLRQDO UHSRUWV RQ WKH SRVWVHFRQGDU\ HGXFDWLRQ LWVHOI LH ,QYROYHPHQW LQ /HDUQLQJ f ,QWHJULW\ LQ WKH &ROOHJH &XUULFXOXP f &ROOHJH 7KH 8QGHUJUDGXDWH ([SHULHQFH LQ $PHULFD %R\HU f +RGJNLQVRQfV f SUHGLFWLRQV

PAGE 93

FRQFHUQLQJ VWXGHQWV IRU WKH GHFDGHV DKHDG RU .HOOHUfV f FDOO IRU D QHZ VW\OH RI OHDGHU IRU LQVWLWXWLRQV WKHVH UHSRUWV VHHP WR LQGLFDWH WKH QHHG IRU FKDQJH )HZ LI DQ\ RI WKHVH VWXGLHV SURYLGH PHWKRGV RQ KRZ WR LPSOHPHQW SODQQHG FKDQJH RU KRZ WR VXFFHVVIXOO\ FDUU\ RXW WKH JRDOV WKH\ KDYH H[SUHVVHG ,W ZRXOG VHHP HYLGHQW IURP WKHVH FDOOV IRU FKDQJH WKDW NQRZLQJ KRZ WR JR DERXW FKDQJLQJ IURP D DGPLQLVWUDWLYH SHUVSHFWLYH ZRXOG EH HVVHQWLDO .HOOHU S f SXWV LW H[SOLFLWO\ E\ VWDWLQJ &ROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV FOHDUO\ QHHG WR SODQ IRU WKHVHDQG RWKHUf§XSKHDYDOV DQG WR FRQVWUXFW D PRUH DFWLYH FKDQJHRULHQWHG PDQDJHPHQW VW\OH 7KH HUD RI ODLVVH]IDLUH FDPSXV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ LV RYHU ,I DGPLQLVWUDWRUV LQ JHQHUDO DQG VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV LQ SDUWLFXODU DUH JRLQJ WR EH DEOH WR PRYH WKHLU LQVWLWXWLRQV RU GHSDUWPHQWV DKHDG LQ D PRUH HIIHFWLYH PDQQHU WKHUH LV FOHDUO\ D QHHG QRW RQO\ WR XQGHUVWDQG FKDQJH EXW DOVR WR NQRZ ZKDW WDFWLFV IRU DFFRPSOLVKLQJ FKDQJH PLJKW EH HIIHFWLYHO\ HPSOR\HG 7R WKLV HQG DQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH SUHIHUUHG PHWKRGV RU DSSURDFKHV WR WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI FKDQJH E\ WKH LQGLYLGXDOV LQYROYHG LQ WKH SURFHVV FRXOG SURYH KHOSIXO WR WKH VSRQVRU RU LQLWLDWRU RI WKDW FKDQJH 7KH XVH RI 1XWWf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

PAGE 94

GLUHFWLQJ WKH KRXVLQJ RSHUDWLRQ DUH IUHTXHQWO\ IDFHG ZLWK WKH QHHG WR FRQVWDQWO\ UHYLHZ DQG FKDQJH SROLFLHV SURFHGXUHV SURJUDPV EXGJHWV VWDIILQJ SDWWHUQV DQG WUDLQLQJ UHTXLUHPHQWV 7R DFFRPSOLVK FKDQJH LQ WKH PRVW HIIHFWLYH PDQQHU WKRVH LQGLYLGXDOV LQYROYHG LQ WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ DQG GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ SURFHVV VKRXOG XQGHUVWDQG DQG DSSUHFLDWH WKH YLHZV DV WR WKH SUHIHUUHG DSSURDFK WR WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI WKRVH FKDQJHV E\ WKH YDULRXV DGPLQLVWUDWRUV LQYROYHG 9DU\LQJ YLHZV RQ WKH SUHIHUUHG DSSURDFK WR WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI D SODQQHG FKDQJH E\ WKRVH LQ WKH FKDLQ RI FRPPDQG UHVSRQVLEOH IRU PDQDJHPHQW RI WKH FKDQJHV FRXOG FUHDWH XQQHFHVVDU\ FRQIOLFW ODFN RI VXSSRUW DQG SRVVLEO\ ODFN RI VXFFHVV IRU WKH RYHUDOO SURMHFW 'HYHORSLQJ VRPH VHQVH RI ZKDW WDFWLFV DGPLQLVWUDWRUV SUHIHU LQ D JLYHQ W\SH RI VLWXDWLRQ FDQ KHOS ZLWK WKH RYHUDOO XQGHUVWDQGLQJ QHFHVVDU\ WR PDNH WKH FKDQJH SURFHVV VXFFHVVIXO )RU WKHVH UHDVRQV LW DSSHDUHG WKDW WR IRFXV WKLV VWXG\ RQ WKHVH DGPLQLVWUDWLYH OHYHOV ZRXOG EH KLJKO\ DSSURSULDWH DQG EHQHILFLDO &RQFHSWXDO )UDPHZRUN $V D UHVXOW RI KLV UHVHDUFK 1XWW GHYHORSHG IRXU GHVFULSWLYH FDWHJRULHV WKDW GHOLQHDWH DSSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI WKH SODQQHG FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV XVHG E\ D VHOHFWHG JURXS RI PDQDJHUV LQ VHOHFWHG VHUYLFH UHODWHG LQVWLWXWLRQV 7KH IRXU LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV DV GHVFULEHG E\ 1XWW DUH DV IROORZV ,QWHUYHQWLRQ 7R LQLWLDWH FKDQJH SURFHVVHV WKH PDQDJHUVSRQVRUV EHFDPH SURWDJRQLVWV E\ FUHDWLQJ UDWLRQDOHV IRU DFWLRQ LQ WKH PLQGV RI NH\ SHRSOH 7KH\ DSSUDLVH SHUIRUPDQFH OHYHOV DQG GHPRQVWUDWH SHUIRUPDQFH LQDGHTXDFLHV E\ DSSO\LQJ QHZ QRUPV FUHDWHG E\ WKHVH UDWLRQDOHV 1XWW f IRXQG WKDW WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ E\ LQWHUYHQWLRQ WDFWLF ZDV XVHG LQ b 1XWW f DQG b 1XWW f RI WKH FDVHV KH H[DPLQHG ZLWK D FKDQJH DGRSWLRQ VXFFHVV UDWH RI b LQ ERWK VWXG\ UHSRUWV 3DUWLFLSDWLRQ 0DQDJHUVSRQVRUV LQLWLDWH FKDQJH SURFHVVHV E\ VWLSXODWLQJ QHHGV RU

PAGE 95

RSSRUWXQLWLHV DQG WKHQ DVVLJQLQJ GHFLVLRQV IRU GHYHORSPHQWDO DFWLYLWLHV 3DUWLFLSDWLRQ LQYROYHV VHYHUDO OHYHOV RI LQYROYHPHQW Df WRNHQ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ Ef GHOHJDWHG SDUWLFLSDWLRQ Ff FRPSOHWH SDUWLFLSDWLRQ DQG Gf FRPSUHKHQVLYH SDUWLFLSDWLRQ 1XWW UHSRUWHG WKDW LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ E\ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ ZDV REVHUYHG LQ b 1XWW f DQG b 1XWW f RI WKH FDVHV VWXGLHG ZLWK DQ RYHUDOO FKDQJH DGRSWLRQ VXFFHVV UDWH RI b UHSRUWHG IURP WKH VWXG\ DQG b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b 1XWW f DQG b 1XWW f RFFXUUHQFH RI LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ E\ SHUVXDVLRQ ZLWK D FKDQJH DGRSWLRQ VXFFHVV UDWH RI b UHSRUWHG IURP WKH VWXG\ DQG b IURP WKH VWXG\ ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ E\ SHUVXDVLRQ ZDV WKH PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ HPSOR\HG RI DOO WKH WDFWLFV UHSRUWHG E\ 1XWW EXW ZDV QRW UHSRUWHG DV WKH PRVW VXFFHVVIXO IRU WKH DGRSWLRQ RI WKH SODQQHG FKDQJH (GLFW (GLFW LQYROYHV WKH VSRQVRU XVLQJ FRQWURO DQG SHUVRQDO SRZHU ZKLOH DYRLGLQJ DQ\ IRUP RI SDUWLFLSDWLRQ 7KUHH NH\ IHDWXUHV DUH Df VSRQVRUfV FRQWURO RI FKDQJH SURFHVV LV LQWHUPLWWHQW ZLWK QR FRPPRQ WKHPH Ef VSRQVRUV GR QRW GLVFXVV FKDQJHV ZLWK XVHUV LQ DQ\ DWWHPSW WR MXVWLI\ WKH QHHG IRU FKDQJH DQG Ff VSRQVRUV LVVXH GLUHFWLYHV E\ PDQDJHULDO ILDW 0DQDJHUV VLPSO\ DQQRXQFH FKDQJHV 1XWWfV UHVHDUFK UHYHDOHG D XVH UDWH RI b f DQG b f IURP KLV FDVH VWXGLHV ZLWK DQ RYHUDOO VXFFHVVIXO FKDQJH DGRSWLRQ UDWH RI b UHSRUWHG IURP WKH VWXG\ DQG b LQ WKH VWXG\

PAGE 96

5HYLHZ RI WKH /LWHUDWXUH 7KH UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH ZDV WR SURYLGH EDFNJURXQG LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ WKH DUHDV RI FKDQJH PDQDJHPHQW FKDQJH DV UHODWHG WR VWXGHQW DIIDLUV DQG WKH IXQFWLRQDO DUHDV RI PDQDJHPHQW $ SDUWLFXODU DUHD RI IRFXV ZDV 1XWWfV WD[RQRP\ RI FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV DQG WKH IXQFWLRQDO DUHDV RI PDQDJHPHQW 1XWWf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f DQG WKDW KRXVHG VLQJOH VWXGHQWV RU PRUH LQ WKHLU RQFDPSXV IDFLOLWLHV $&8+2, LV DQ LQWHUQDWLRQDO RUJDQL]DWLRQ GHVLJQHG WR UHSUHVHQW IRVWHU GHYHORS SURPRWH DQG LPSURYH WKH ILHOG RI FROOHJH DQG XQLYHUVLW\ KRXVLQJ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ ,W KDV D WRWDO LQWHUQDWLRQDO PHPEHUVKLS RI QHDUO\ VFKRROV UHSUHVHQWLQJ ERWK DQG \HDU SXEOLF SULYDWH UHOLJLRXV DQG SURSULHWDU\ LQVWLWXWLRQV 7KH WRWDO QXPEHU RI LQVWLWXWLRQV TXDOLI\LQJ DV WKH DFFHVVLEOH SRSXODWLRQ ZDV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH $&8+2, 'LUHFWRU\ 6DXWWHU f $Q\ LQVWLWXWLRQ WKDW GLG QRW KDYH DOO WKUHH JURXSV RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII ZDV HOLPLQDWHG IURP WKH VWXG\ 7KH TXDOLI\LQJ LQVWLWXWLRQV ZHUH DUUDQJHG LQ DOSKDEHWLFDO RUGHU E\ VWDWH DQG WKHQ QXPEHUHG LQ RUGHU IURP WR 7KUHH VHSDUDWH FRPSXWHU JHQHUDWHG

PAGE 97

UDQGRP QXPEHU VHULHV ZHUH SURGXFHG DQG DSSOLHG WR WKH LQVWLWXWLRQDO OLVW RI TXDOLI\LQJ VFKRROV 7KLV SURGXFHG WKUHH VHSDUDWHO\ GUDZQ JURXSV IURP WKH VDPH QXPEHU RI TXDOLI\LQJ LQVWLWXWLRQV 7KH WKUHH JURXSV HDFK GUDZQ UDQGRPO\ ZHUH WKH FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHU WKH FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHU DQG SURIHVVLRQDO PHPEHUV RI WKH KRXVLQJUHVLGHQFH OLIH VWDII LPPHGLDWHO\ VXERUGLQDWH WR WKH FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHU 6XERUGLQDWH KRXVLQJ RIILFHUV VHOHFWHG DV UHVSRQGHQWV IRU WKH VWXG\ ZHUH GHWHUPLQHG EDVHG RQ WKH MRE WLWOH OLVWHG LQ WKH $&8+2, 'LUHFWRU\ LQ WKH RUGHU RI Df DVVRFLDWH GLUHFWRU RU HTXLYDOHQW WLWOH Ef DVVLVWDQW GLUHFWRU RU HTXLYDOHQW WLWOH DQG Ff FRRUGLQDWRU RU HTXLYDOHQW WLWOH ,Q FDVHV RI PXOWLSOH KROGHUV RI VLPLODU WLWOHV D UDQGRP VHOHFWLRQ ZDV LQLWLDWHG WR VHOHFW WKH UHVSRQGHQW 2I WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII VXUYH\HG WKHUH ZHUH D WRWDO RI bf UHWXUQV 2I WKDW WRWDO HOHYHQ LQVWUXPHQWV ZHUH UHMHFWHG 2I WKH HOHYHQ UHMHFWHG VHYHQ VXUYH\V ZHUH FRPSOHWHG E\ RWKHU WKDQ WKH VHOHFWHG OHYHO RI VWDII WZR ZHUH UHWXUQHG WRR ODWH WR EH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH DQDO\VLV DQG WZR ZHUH UHWXUQHG LPSURSHUO\ FRPSOHWHG 7KH WRWDO XVHDEOH UHWXUQ ZDV bf 7KLV QXPEHU ZDV XVHG LQ WKH DQDO\VLV 7KH UHWXUQ UDWH EUHDNGRZQ E\ VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII JURXS UHYHDOHG WKDW WKH FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV UHVSRQVH WRWDO ZDV bf WKH FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHUV UHVSRQVH WRWDO ZDV bf DQG WKH KRXVLQJ VWDII UHVSRQGHG ZLWK D WRWDO RI bf RI WKH WRWDO UHWXUQV 7KH LQVWUXPHQW XVHG $ 6WXG\ RI &KDQJH ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ LQ 6WXGHQW +RXVLQJ 0DQDJHPHQW $SSHQGL[ ,f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

PAGE 98

7KH UHVSRQGHQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR UDWH HDFK WDFWLF RQ D RQH QHYHU DSSOLFDEOHf WR ILYH DOZD\V DSSOLFDEOHf VFDOH :LWK WKLV VFDOH WKH FORVHU WKH PHDQ VFRUH IRU WKH WDFWLF ZDV WR ILYH WKH PRUH DSSOLFDEOH WKH WDFWLF ZDV SHUFHLYHG WR EH WR PDQDJHULDO VLWXDWLRQV DQG WKH FORVHU WKH PHDQ VFRUH RI WKH WDFWLF ZDV WR RQH WKH OHVV DSSOLFDEOH LW ZDV SHUFHLYHG WR EH 7KH UHVSRQVHV WR WKH IRXU FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV DFURVV WKH WZHOYH K\SRWKHWLFDO FKDQJH VLWXDWLRQV SURYLGHG D PHDVXUH RI WKH SHUFHLYHG RYHUDOO DSSURSULDWHQHVV RI HDFK RI WKH WDFWLFV WKH SHUFHLYHG DSSURSULDWHQHVV RI HDFK RI WKH WDFWLFV ZLWKLQ D VSHFLILF IXQFWLRQDO PDQDJHPHQW DUHD DQG WKH GLIIHUHQFHV DPRQJ WKH WKUHH OHYHOV RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII DV WR WKHLU SHUFHLYHG DSSURSULDWHQHVV RI HDFK RI WKH WDFWLFV LQ WRWDO DQG LQ UHODWLRQ WR IXQFWLRQDO PDQDJHPHQW DUHDV 7KH GDWD JHQHUDWHG E\ WKH UHVSRQVHV WR WKH VXUYH\ LQVWUXPHQW ZDV DQDO\]HG XVLQJ WKH 6WDWLVWLFDO $QDO\VLV 6\VWHP 6$6f 2QHZD\ DQDO\VHV RI YDULDQFH $129$f XVLQJ WKH JHQHUDO OLQHDU PRGHO */0f IRU XQEDODQFHG GDWD ZDV XVHG WR WHVW HLJKW RI WKH K\SRWKHVHV $ VLPSOH W WHVW ZDV XVHG WR WHVW K\SRWKHVLV 7KHVH DQDO\VHV DOORZHG WKH UHVHDUFKHU WR FRPSDUH WKH PHDQV RI WKH WKUHH JURXSV LQYROYHG LQ WKH VWXG\ 6XPPDU\ RI 0DMRU )LQGLQJV 7KHUH ZHUH QLQH QXOO K\SRWKHVHV WKDW ZHUH WHVWHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ 2I WKH QLQH IRXU ZHUH UHMHFWHG 7KH IROORZLQJ VWDWHPHQWV IXUQLVK D FRPSLODWLRQ RI WKH ILQGLQJV 1XWWfV FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV ZHUH DSSOLHG WR FKDQJH VLWXDWLRQV LQ D VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW PDQQHU 7KDW LV HDFK WDFWLF ZDV XWLOL]HG LQGHSHQGHQWO\ E\ WKH UHVSRQGHQWV LQ HYDOXDWLQJ WKH DSSOLFDELOLW\ RI WKH WDFWLFV WR FKDQJH VLWXDWLRQV 7KH UDWLQJ VFRUHV IRU HDFK WDFWLF GLIIHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ IURP WKH VFRUHV RI WKH RWKHU WDFWLFV WKXV VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW WKH DSSURDFKHV GHVFULEHG E\ WKH WDFWLFV ZHUH SHUFHLYHG DV XQLTXH E\ WKH UHVSRQGHQWV

PAGE 99

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

PAGE 100

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fV PRGHO RI FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV WR KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ $OWKRXJK DOO IRXU WDFWLFV ZHUH SHUFHLYHG WR EH DSSOLFDEOH WR FKDQJH VLWXDWLRQV WKHUH ZHUH FOHDU SUHIHUHQFHV IRU VRPH RYHU RWKHUV DFURVV DOO DGPLQLVWUDWLYH JURXSV

PAGE 101

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

PAGE 102

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f SRLQW VFDOH ,WV RYHUDOO PHDQ UDWLQJ DFURVV DOO VLWXDWLRQV IRU DOO DGPLQLVWUDWRUV ZDV )RU 1XWW KLV UHVHDUFK GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW WKH XVH RI DQ HGLFW DV DQ LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLF ZDV WKH WKLUG PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ HPSOR\HG WDFWLF EHLQJ XVHG LQ b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

PAGE 103

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

PAGE 104

2YHUDOO WKHUH LV D JUHDW GHDO RI VLPLODULW\ LQ WKH SUHIHUHQFH SDWWHUQ IRU DSSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH IRXU WDFWLFV 2QO\ LQ D IHZ FDVHV DUH WKHUH VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV DPRQJ WKH WKUHH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV JURXSV 3HUKDSV WKLV FDQ EH DWWULEXWHG WR WKH VLPLODULW\ LQ EDFNJURXQGV WUDLQLQJ HGXFDWLRQ RU H[SHULHQFHV ,Q D VLJQLILFDQW VWHS WKLV VWXG\ H[WHQGHG 1XWWfV PRGHO WR D GLIIHUHQW SRSXODWLRQ DQG ZRUN VHWWLQJ ,Q KLV ZRUN 1XWW GHYHORSHG KLV PRGHO E\ HYDOXDWLQJ DFWXDO FKDQJH VLWXDWLRQV ZLWKLQ WKH VHUYLFH LQGXVWULHV 7KLV VWXG\ VXSSRUWHG WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI 1XWWfV PRGHO WR WKH HYDOXDWLRQ RI FKDQJH VLWXDWLRQV LQ HGXFDWLRQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DQG H[WHQGHG WKH WHUPLQRORJ\ DQG GHILQLWLRQV RI WKH PRGHO WR KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ 7KH H[WHQVLRQ RI WKLV PRGHO LQWR WKH UHVHDUFK OLWHUDWXUH RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ VKRXOG VHUYH WR RSHQ DGGLWLRQDO DUHDV IRU VWXG\ ,Q VXPPDU\ LW DSSHDUV WKDW 1XWWf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fV UHVHDUFK LW GLG QRW SURGXFH WKH VXFFHVV UDWH WKDW WKH LQWHUYHQWLRQ WDFWLF $QG WKRXJK IURP WKLV VWXG\ LW LV FOHDU WKDW WKH VWXGHQW DIIDLUV DGPLQLVWUDWRU UHVSRQGHQWV FOHDUO\ VXJJHVWHG WKDW SDUWLFLSDWLRQ DQG LQWHUYHQWLRQ ZHUH WKH PRVW DSSURSULDWH WDFWLFV IRU DOO WKH PDQDJHULDO WDVNV 1XWWfV UHVHDUFK SRLQWV RXW WKDW WKHVH WZR PHWKRGV ZHUH QRW DV IUHTXHQWO\ DSSOLHG DV ZDV WKH SHUVXDVLRQ WDFWLF ,I WKLV VDPH SDWWHUQ KROGV LQ WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI VWXGHQW KRXVLQJ WKHQ ZKDW DGPLQLVWUDWRUV WKLQN LV WKH PRVW DSSURSULDWH FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLF LV QRW WKH RQH

PAGE 105

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

PAGE 106

7KH VWXG\ VHHPHG WR ILQG WKDW PRVW VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV H[LVWHG EHWZHHQ WKH UROHV RI FKLHI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RIILFHUV DQG FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHUV %HFDXVH WKHVH WZR UROHV DUH JHQHUDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW SOD\HUV LQ WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLYH VWUXFWXUH RI D VWXGHQW DIIDLUV RUJDQL]DWLRQ DGGLWLRQDO VWXG\ FRXOG EH GHYHORSHG WR H[DPLQH RWKHU GLIIHUHQFHV WKDW PLJKW H[LVW LQ WKH PDQDJHPHQW SKLORVRSKLHV RI WKHVH WR SRVLWLRQV

PAGE 107

$33(1',; $ ,16758&7,216 72 -8'*(6 )25 9$/,'$7,21 2) 6&(1$5,26 )25 6859(< ,167580(17 'HDU &ROOHDJXH 7KDQN \RX IRU \RXU ZLOOLQJQHVV WR DVVLVW ZLWK WKLV SURMHFW 7KLV VWXG\ ZLOO XOWLPDWHO\ LQYHVWLJDWH WKH SHUFHSWLRQV RI &KLHI +RXVLQJ 2IILFHUV DV UHODWHG WR WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV RI SODQQHG FKDQJH ,Q RUGHU WR GHYHORS DQ LQVWUXPHQW WR VWXG\ WKLV DUHD D VHULHV RI VLWXDWLRQV ZHUH GHYHORSHG WKDW UHIOHFW SUREOHPV WKDW &KLHI +RXVLQJ 2IILFHUV PLJKW HQFRXQWHU LQ WKH PDQDJHPHQW RI D KRXVLQJ RSHUDWLRQ
PAGE 108

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

PAGE 109

6,78$7,21 'XULQJ WKH SDVW VFKRRO \HDU \RX DQG \RXU VWDII H[SHULHQFHG WKH ILUVW FDVH RI $,'6 LQ WKH UHVLGHQFH KDOOV 7KHUH ZDV H[WUHPH WXUPRLO RQ WKH VWDII 5$V DQG JUDGXDWH VWDII UHVLJQHGf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f 7+( 6,78$7,21 '(6&5,%(' $%29( ,6 ,17(1'(' 72 +$9( 7+( 0$1$*(0(17 )81&7,21 2) f3/$11,1*f $6 ,76 )2&86 :28/' <28 FLUFOH RQHf $*5(( ',6$*5(( 7+$7 7+,6 ,6 $&+,(9(' ,) f',6$*5((f ,6 <285 $16:(5 3/($6( ,1',&$7( 21 7+( &200(17 3$*( +2: <28 :28/' &+$1*( 7+( 6&(1$5,2 72 $&+,(9( ,76 ,17(1'(' )2&86 f ,6 7+,6 $ 5($/,67,& 6,78$7,21 7+$7 &28/' %( &21)5217(' %< $ &+,() +286,1* 2)),&(5 FLUFOH RQHf <(6 12 ,) f12r ,6 <285 $16:(5 3/($6( ,1',&$7( 21 7+( &200(17 3$*( +2: ,7 &28/' %( 0$'( 5($/,67,& 6,78$7,21
PAGE 110

6,78$7,21 $W \RXU LQVWLWXWLRQ DOO RI WKH UHVLGHQFH KDOOV KDYH EHHQ RI D WUDGLWLRQDO W\SH WKDW LV GRXEOH ORDGHG FRUULGRU KDOOV URRPV RQ HLWKHU VLGHf IORRU ORXQJH FRPPXQLW\ EDWKURRPV DW HDFK HQG JHQHUDOO\ KROGLQJ UHVLGHQWV SHU IORRU
PAGE 111

6,78$7,21 $V WKH &KLHI +RXVLQJ 2IILFHU RI PHGLXP VL]H RSHUDWLRQ \RX KDYH EHJXQ WR REVHUYH WKDW \RXU RSHUDWLRQ LV IXQFWLRQLQJ DW D OHYHO WKDW LV QRW DV HIILFLHQW DV LW VKRXOG EH
PAGE 112

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
PAGE 113

6,78$7,21 $V WKH QHZ &KLHI +RXVLQJ 2IILFHU \RX REVHUYH WKDW \RXU VWDII KDV RSHUDWHG RQ D IDLUO\ DXWRQRPRXV EDVLV IRU PDQ\ \HDUV 7KHUH LV QR FHQWUDO VHW RI JXLGHOLQHV RU SROLF\ VWDWHPHQWV SXEOLVKHG IURP \RXU GHSDUWPHQW 6WDII JHQHUDOO\ UHO\ RQ WKHLU RZQ GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ VNLOOV UHIHU WR SDVW JURXS VWDII GLVFXVVLRQV RU FDOO \RX IRU LQIRUPDWLRQ
PAGE 114

6,78$7,21
PAGE 115

&RPPHQWV
PAGE 116

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f 7KH YDOLGDWLRQ RI WKH UHVSRQVHV LV D FULWLFDO SDUW RI WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW
PAGE 117

$33(1',; 9$/,'$7,21 2) 5(63216(6 ,167580(17 5HDG WKH IRXU LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV RI SODQQHG FKDQJH DV GHWDLOHG E\ 1XWW LQ KLV UHVHDUFK 5HDG HDFK RI WKH SURSRVHG UHVSRQVHV ,Q WKH SODFH SURYLGHG EHQHDWK HDFK SURSRVHG UHVSRQVH LQGLFDWH ZKLFK RI 1XWWfV WDFWLFV LV PRVW DFFXUDWHO\ UHSUHVHQWHG E\ WKDW UHVSRQVH -XGJH HDFK UHVSRQVH LQGHSHQGHQWO\ DQG GR QRW XVH WKH SURFHVV RI HOLPLQDWLRQ WR GHWHUPLQH WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLF UHSUHVHQWHG E\ WKH UHVSRQVH 3OHDVH QRWH DQ\ FRPPHQWV RU VXJJHVWLRQV LQ WKH VSDFH SURYLGHG 6800$5< 2) 1877f6 &+$1*( ,03/(0(17$7,21 7$&7,&6 7KH IROORZLQJ DUH WKH IRXU GHVFULSWLRQV RI WKH FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV DV GHWDLOHG LQ 1XWWf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f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f

PAGE 118

,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ EY 3DUWLFLSDWLRQ 7R XVH SDUWLFLSDWLRQ PDQDJHUVSRQVRUV LQLWLDWHG FKDQJH SURFHVVHV E\ VWLSXODWLQJ QHHGV RU RSSRUWXQLWLHV DQG WKHQ DVVLJQLQJ GHFLVLRQV IRU GHYHORSPHQWDO DFWLYLWLHV 6XFK VWLSXODWLRQV FUHDWH REMHFWLYHV ZLWK YDU\LQJ GHJUHHV RI H[SOLFLWQHVV 6SRQVRUV VHOHFW WDVN IRUFH PHPEHUV WR UHSUHVHQW FHUWDLQ SRLQWV RI YLHZ RU WR JLYH LQIRUPDWLRQ WKRXJKW WR EH LPSRUWDQW 6SRQVRUV GHOHJDWHG UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU JXLGLQJ SURMHFW GHYHORSPHQW SURFHVVHV WR WDVN IRUFHV 6XFK GHOHJDWLRQ VSHFLILHG FRQVWUDLQWV DQG H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG LGHQWLILHG VXSSRUW VWDII 7DVN IRUFHV DUULYHG DW FRQVHQVXV DERXW VSHFLILFV 7KH\ PDNH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV 7KH FRRSWDWLRQ LPSOLFLW LQ WKLV GHOHJDWLRQ EHFDPH D YHKLFOH WR SURPRWH FRPSOLDQFH 7KH SDUWLFLSDWLRQf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f XVLQJ FRQWURO DQG SHUVRQDO SRZHU ZKLOH DYRLGLQJ DQ\ IRUP RI SDUWLFLSDWLRQ 7KLV WDFWLF KDG WKUHH NH\ IHDWXUHV )LUVW VSRQVRUVf FRQWURO RI FKDQJH SURFHVVHV ZDV LQWHUPLWWHQW ZLWK QR FRPPRQ WKHPH 7KHUH ZDV QR UHFRJQL]DEOH SDWWHUQ LQ VSRQVRUVf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

PAGE 119

5HVSRQVHV IRU 6WXG\ ,QVWUXPHQW 5(63216(
PAGE 120

,OO 5(63216(
PAGE 121

$33(1',; ( /(77(5 72 $&8+2, 5(6($5&+ $1' ,1)250$7,21 &200,77(( 6((.,1* 6833257 )25 678'< 2FWREHU 'U 5LWD 0RVHU &KDLUSHUVRQ $&8+2, 5HVHDUFK t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f ZLOO EH H[DPLQLQJ KRZ HDFK RI WKHVH WKUHH OHYHOV RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV VWDII UHVSRQG WR WZHOYH K\SRWKHWLFDO VLWXDWLRQV GHYHORSHG VR DV WR LQGLFDWH D QHHG IRU VRPH IRUP RI FKDQJH 7KH WZHOYH VLWXDWLRQV KDYH EHHQ GHYHORSHG WR UHIOHFW WKH IRXU SULQFLSOH PDQDJHPHQW WDVNV RI SODQQLQJ RUJDQL]LQJ OHDGLQJ DQG FRQWUROOLQJ WKUHH VLWXDWLRQV SHU PDQDJHPHQW WDVNf 7KH VWXG\ ZLOO UHTXHVW WKDW HDFK UHVSRQGHQW UHDFW WR HDFK VLWXDWLRQ E\ UDWLQJ RQ D WR VFDOH HDFK RI IRXU FKDQJH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ WDFWLFV ,Q GRLQJ WKLV WKH UHVSRQGHQWV ZLOO EH LQGLFDWLQJ E\ WKHLU UDWLQJ WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH\ SUHIHU WKDW WDFWLF DV DQ DSSURDFK WR HIIHFW WKH FKDQJHVf WKH\ GHHP QHFHVVDU\ IURP WKH K\SRWKHWLFDO VLWXDWLRQV SUHVHQWHG LQ WKH VWXG\ )URP WKH GDWD JHQHUDWHG KRSH WR H[DPLQH WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ HDFK RI WKH WKUHH OHYHOV RI VWDII HDFK RI WKH IRXU WDFWLFV DQG EHWZHHQ WKH IRXU SULQFLSOH W\SHV RI PDQDJHPHQW WDVNV

PAGE 122

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

PAGE 123

$33(1',; ) &29(5 /(77(5 )25 6859(< ',5(&7(' 72 &+,() +286,1* 2)),&(56 $1' 352)(66,21$/ +286,1* 67$)) 1RYHPEHU 'HDU &ROOHDJXH 0U %UDQDQ :RRGKDP LV D UHVHDUFK DVVLVWDQW DQG JUDGXDWH VWXGHQW LQ WKH ,QVWLWXWH RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD DV ZHOO DV DQ $VVLVWDQW 'LUHFWRU RI +RXVLQJ ZLWK WKH 8QLYHUVLW\fV 'LYLVLRQ RI +RXVLQJ +H LV FRQGXFWLQJ D VWXG\ XQGHU WKH VSRQVRUVKLS RI WKH ,QVWLWXWH DQG ZLWK WKH VXSSRUW RI WKH 'LYLVLRQ RI +RXVLQJ DQG WKH $&8+2, 5HVHDUFK DQG ,QIRUPDWLRQ &RPPLWWHH VHH DFFRPSDQ\LQJ OHWWHUf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
PAGE 124

:H DSSUHFLDWH \RXU SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WKLV LPSRUWDQW UHVHDUFK
PAGE 125

$33(1',; &29(5 /(77(5 )25 6859(< ',5(&7(' 72 &+,() 678'(17 $))$,56 2)),&(56 1RYHPEHU 'HDU &ROOHDJXH 0U %UDQDQ :RRGKDP LV D UHVHDUFK DVVLVWDQW DQG JUDGXDWH VWXGHQW LQ WKH ,QVWLWXWH RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD DV ZHOO DV DQ $VVLVWDQW 'LUHFWRU RI +RXVLQJ ZLWK WKH 8QLYHUVLW\fV 'LYLVLRQ RI +RXVLQJ +H LV FRQGXFWLQJ D VWXG\ XQGHU WKH VSRQVRUVKLS RI WKH ,QVWLWXWH DQG ZLWK WKH VXSSRUW RI WKH 'LYLVLRQ RI +RXVLQJ DQG WKH $&8+2, 5HVHDUFK DQG ,QIRUPDWLRQ &RPPLWWHH VHH DFFRPSDQ\LQJ OHWWHUf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
PAGE 126

:H DSSUHFLDWH \RXU SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WKLV LPSRUWDQW UHVHDUFK
PAGE 127

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
PAGE 128

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mf Ef )$// 727$/ ,167,787,21$/ (152//0(17 IXOO DQG SDUWWLPHf ,, 678'(17 $))$,56+286,1* 67$)) SHUVRQ FRPSOHWLQJ WKLV LQVWUXPHQWf Df 7,7/( Ef *(1'(5 FLUFOHf Ff $*( FLUFOHf Hf <($56 (03/2<(' ,1 &855(17 326,7,21 Gf ('8&$7,21$/ /(9(/ FLUFOH RQHf 0DOH 8QGHU 1R 'HJUHH )HPDOH %DFKHORUV 0DVWHUV 6SHFLDOLVW 2YHU 'RFWRUDWH 3URIHVVLRQDO /DZ0HGLFLQHf If <($56 (03/2<(' 352)(66,21$//< ,1 678'(17 $))$,56+286,1* ,,,+286,1*5(6,'(1&( /,)( 23(5$7,21 Df 727$/ 6,1*/( 678'(17 +286,1* &$3$&,7< Ef 0$/(6 Ff )(0$/(6 Gf 727$/ )$0,/< +286,1* 81,76 Hf 727$/ )8//7,0( (03/2<((6 :,7+,1 +286,1*5(6,'(1&( /,)( 25*$1,=$7,21 2) 7+,6 727$/ +2: 0$1< $5( )8//7,0( &$5((5 +286,1*5(6,'(1&( /,)( 352)(66,21$/6 LH +DOO 'LUHFWRUV &RRUGLQDWRUV $VVRFLDWH DQG $VVLVWDQW 'LUHFWRUVf &2'( 180%(5

PAGE 129

',5(&7,216 2Q WKH IROORZLQJ SDJHV DUH SUHVHQWHG WZHOYH VLWXDWLRQV WKDW PD\ RFFXU LQ WKH PDQDJHPHQW RI D UHVLGHQFH KDOO V\VWHP (DFK VLWXDWLRQ LPSOLHV WKDW VRPH VRUW RI FKDQJH LV QHFHVVDU\ 7KH VSHFLILF FKDQJH QHFHVVDU\ LQ DQ\ JLYHQ VLWXDWLRQ LV QRW DV LPSRUWDQW IRU WKLV VWXG\ DV LV \RXU SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH DSSURDFKHVf RU WDFWLFVf \RX IHHO WR EH DSSURSULDWH WR DGGUHVV WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI WKH SODQQHG FKDQJH 2Q WKH IROORZLQJ SDJH DUH GHVFULSWLRQV RI IRXU WDFWLFV IRU WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI SODQQHG FKDQJH (DFK RI WKH WDFWLFV LV GHVFULEHG LQ GHWDLO DQG ZLOO QHHG WR EH UHIHUHQFHG IUHTXHQWO\ IRU FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW 5HDG HDFK RI WKH VLWXDWLRQV FDUHIXOO\ 7KH VLWXDWLRQV DQG WDFWLFV DUH FHQWHUHG DURXQG WKH SRVLWLRQ DQG UROH RI WKH &KLHI +RXVLQJ 2IILFHU +RZHYHU SOHDVH UHVSRQG WR HDFK VLWXDWLRQ DV LI LW ZHUH <285 UHVSRQVLELOLW\ WR GHFLGH RQ WKH FRXUVH RI DFWLRQ IRU WKDW VLWXDWLRQ )RU HDFK RI WKH VLWXDWLRQV GHVFULEHG LQ WKH LQVWUXPHQW HYDOXDWH ($&+ WDFWLF DFFRUGLQJ WR \RXU SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKDW WDFWLFfV DSSURSULDWHQHVV IRU WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI WKH QHFHVVDU\ FKDQJHVf 5DWH HDFK WDFWLF RQ D RQH f WR ILYH f VFDOH ZLWK LQGLFDWLQJ D QHYHU DSSURSULDWH WDFWLF WR LQGLFDWLQJ DQ DOZD\V DSSURSULDWH WDFWLF 3OHDVH HYDOXDWH HDFK WDFWLF IRU HDFK VLWXDWLRQ '2 127 VNLS RU OHDYH RXW D UDWLQJ (YDOXDWH HDFK WDFWLF LQGHSHQGHQWO\ RI WKH RWKHUV 6HH H[DPSOHV EHORZf (;$03/(6 2) 5(63216(6 6&25,1* ',5(&7,216 %HVLGH HDFK WDFWLF QDPH UHIOHFW \RXU SUHIHUHQFHV E\ DVVLJQLQJ ($&+ WDFWLF D UDWLQJ QXPEHU IURP WR EDVHG RQ WKH VFDOH VKRZQ EHORZ 1(9(5 $335235,$7(@ >$/:$<6 $335235,$7(@ (;$03/( 7$&7,& 5$7,1*6 )25 VP-$7,21 r 5()(5 72 6&$/( $7 723 2) 3$*( r ,17(59(17,21 (',&7 3(568$6,21 3$57,&,3$7,21 (;$03/( 7$&7,& 5$7,1*6 )25 6,78$7,21 r 5()(5 72 6&$/( $7 723 2) 3$*( n ,17(59(17,21 (',&7 3(568$6,21 3$57,&,3$7,21 3/($6( 5(7851 &203/(7(' ,167580(17 %< '(&(0%(5 ,1 7+( 67$03(' 6(/)$''5(66(' (19(/23( 3529,'('

PAGE 130

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f EHFRPHV DFWLYHO\ LQYROYHG LQ VHUYLQJ DV VSRQVRU RI WKH FKDQJHVf E\ HVWDEOLVKLQJ QHZ JRDOV DQG QRUPV DSSO\LQJ WKHVH WR WKH FXUUHQW VLWXDWLRQ DQG LGHQWLI\LQJ WKH FXUUHQW SHUIRUPDQFH RU VLWXDWLRQDO VKRUWFRPLQJV +H6KH LQYHVWV WLPH DQG HQHUJ\ VKRZLQJ RWKHU VWDII WKH YDOXH RI WKH SODQQHG FKDQJHVf E\ GHPRQVWUDWLQJ LPSURYHPHQWV SRVVLEOH RU WKH IHDVLELOLW\ RI LPSURYLQJ SUDFWLFHV 2QFH RWKHU VWDII DUH DGHTXDWHO\ LQIRUPHG RI WKH EHQHILWV RI WKH SODQQHG FKDQJHV KHVKH LPSOHPHQWV WKH FKDQJHVf DQG IROORZV XS E\ GHPRQVWUDWLQJ WKH LPSURYHPHQWVf LQ SHUIRUPDQFH RU WKH VLWXDWLRQ (',&7 7KH &KLHI +RXVLQJ 2IILFHU &+2f DV VSRQVRU RI WKH SODQQHG FKDQJHVf LGHQWLILHV WKH QHHGV DQG RSSRUWXQLWLHV +H6KH ZHLJKV WKH DOWHUQDWLYHV DQG VHOHFWV WKH QHFHVVDU\ VWHSV WR DFFRPSOLVK WKH FKDQJHVf 7KH &+2 UHWDLQV FRPSOHWH FRQWURO RI WKH GHYHORSPHQW DQG LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI WKH FKDQJHVf GHWHUPLQHG WR EH QHHGHG /LWWOH RU QR LQSXW LV VRXJKW RU GHVLUHG IURP RWKHUV RQ WKH VWDII +H6KH LVVXHV GLUHFWLYHV WKDW VWLSXODWH WKH FKDQJHVf WR EH LQLWLDWHG &RPSOLDQFH ZLWK WKH FKDQJHVf LVDUH DQWLFLSDWHG DQG H[SHFWHG &+2 PRQLWRUV FKDQJHVf IRU SHUIRUPDQFH RU VLWXDWLRQ LPSURYHPHQWVf 3(568$6,21 7KH &KLHI +RXVLQJ 2IILFHU &+2f DV VSRQVRU RI WKH FKDQJHVf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f 3$57,&,3$7,21 7KH &KLHI +RXVLQJ 2IILFHU &+2f DV VSRQVRU RI WKH SODQQHG FKDQJHVf LQLWLDWHV WKH SURFHVV E\ LGHQWLI\LQJ WKH QHHGV DQGRU RSSRUWXQLWLHV +HVKH GHOHJDWHV VXEVWDQWLDO UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU JXLGLQJ FKDQJH GHYHORSPHQW SURFHVVHV WR WDVN IRUFHV FRQVLVWLQJ RI DSSURSULDWH VWDII DQGRU VWXGHQWV SURYLGLQJ WKHP ZLWK H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG FRQVWUDLQWV 7KH 7DVN )RUFHV GHYHORS UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV DQG WKH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV DUH WKHQ LPSOHPHQWHG E\ WKH FKLHI KRXVLQJ RIILFHU DQG PRQLWRUHG IRU SHUIRUPDQFH RU VLWXDWLRQ LPSURYHPHQWVf

PAGE 131

6&25,1* ',5(&7,216 %HVLGH HDFK WDFWLF QDPH UHIOHFW \RXU SUHIHUHQFHV E\ DVVLJQLQJ ($&+ WDFWLF D UDWLQJ QXPEHU IURP WR EDVHG RQ WKH VFDOH VKRZQ EHORZ 1(9(5 $335235,$7(@ >$/:$<6 $335235,$7(@ 6,78$7,21 'XULQJ WKH SDVW VFKRRO \HDU WKH KRXVLQJ RUJDQL]DWLRQ H[SHULHQFHG WKH ILUVW FDVH RI $,'6 LQ WKH UHVLGHQFH KDOOV 7KHUH ZDV H[WUHPH WXUPRLO RQ WKH VWDII 5$V DQG JUDGXDWH VWDII UHVLJQHGf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r 5()(5 72 6&$/( $7 723 2) 3$*( r ,17(59(17,21 (',&7 3(568$6,21 3$57,&,3$7,21 6,78$7,21 $ QHZ &KLHI +RXVLQJ 2IILFHU &+2f IRU D ODUJH DQG FRPSOH[ KRXVLQJ RSHUDWLRQ KDV UHFHQWO\ EHHQ KLUHG )RU WKH SDVW VHYHUDO \HDUV WKH SUHYLRXV &+2 NHSW UHQWDO UDWH LQFUHDVHV YHU\ ORZ 0RVW \HDUfV LQFUHDVHV KDYH DYHUDJHG OHVV WKDQ b DQG RXW RI WKH ODVW 6 \HDUV WKHUH KDYH EHHQ QR UDWH LQFUHDVHV DW DOO $W WKLV WLPH UHVHUYH IXQGV DUH ORZ EXW WKH RSHUDWLRQ DV D ZKROH LV ILQDQFLDOO\ VRXQG +RZHYHU WKH QHZ &+2n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r 5()(5 72 6&$/( $7 723 2) 3$*( r ,17(59(17,21 (',&7 3(568$6,21 3$57,&,3$7,21

PAGE 132

6&25,1* ',5(&7,216 %HVLGH HDFK WDFWLF QDPH UHIOHFW \RXU SUHIHUHQFHV E\ DVVLJQLQJ ($&+ WDFWLF D UDWLQJ QXPEHU IURP WR EDVHG RQ WKH VFDOH VKRZQ EHORZ 1(9(5 $335235,$7(@ >$/:$<6 $335235,$7(@ 6,78$7,21 $OO RI WKH UHVLGHQFH KDOOV DW WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ KDYH EHHQ RI D WUDGLWLRQDO W\SH WKDW LV GRXEOH ORDGHG FRUULGRU KDOOV URRPV RQ HLWKHU VLGHf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fKRXVLQJ SURJUDPf LQ VXFK D IDFLOLW\ 7KH WDVN LV WR SODQ WKH QHFHVVDU\ FKDQJHV LQ WUDGLWLRQDO VWDIILQJ SDWWHUQV DQG LQ \RXU fKRXVLQJ SURJUDPf VR WKDW WKH QHZ IDFLOLW\ LV LQFRUSRUDWHG IXOO\ LQWR WKH RSHUDWLRQ 7$&7,& 5$7,1*6 )25 6,78$7,21 r 5()(5 72 6&$/( $7 723 2) 3$*( r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f ZLWKLQ WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ 7KH WDVN LV WR RUJDQL]H WKHVH QHZ FKDQJHV LQ UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV VR WKDW WKH QHZ IXQFWLRQV DQG VWDII DUH LQFRUSRUDWHG HDVLO\ ZLWK D PLQLPXP RI SUREOHPV 7$&7,& 5$7,1*6 )25 6,78$7,21 r 5()(5 72 6&$/( $7 723 2) 3$*( r ,17(59(17,21 (',&7 3(568$6,21 3$57,&,3$7,21

PAGE 133

6&25,1* ',5(&7,216 %HVLGH HDFK WDFWLF QDPH UHIOHFW \RXU SUHIHUHQFHV E\ DVVLJQLQJ ($&+ WDFWLF D UDWLQJ QXPEHU IURP WR EDVHG RQ WKH VFDOH VKRZQ EHORZ 1(9(5 $335235,$7(@ >$/:$<6 $335235,$7(@ 6,78$7,21 7KH &KLHI +RXVLQJ 2IILFHU &+2f RI D PHGLXP VL]H RSHUDWLRQ KDV EHJXQ WR REVHUYH WKDW WKH KRXVLQJ RSHUDWLRQ LV IXQFWLRQLQJ DW D OHYHO WKDW LV QRW DV HIILFLHQW DV LW VKRXOG EH 3UREOHPV FDQ EH REVHUYHG LQ WKH DUHDV RI LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG FRPPXQLFDWLRQ WUDLQLQJ SURJUDPPLQJ EXGJHW EXLOGLQJ DQG RWKHU DUHDV IRU ZKLFK WKH IXOOWLPH VWDII KDV UHVSRQVLELOLW\ ,Q WKH FXUUHQW VWDII VWUXFWXUH WKHUH DUH WZR OHYHOV RI IXOOWLPH VWDII EHWZHHQ WKH &+2 DQG WKH UHVLGHQW DVVLVWDQWV XQGHUJUDGXDWH VWDIIf ,W DSSHDUV WKDW RQH RI WKH SUREOHPV LV WKDW WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ LV WRR nWRS KHDY\n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r 5()(5 72 6&$/( $7 723 2) 3$*( r ,17(59(17,21 (',&7 3(568$6,21 3$57,&,3$7,21 6,78$7,21 )RU PDQ\ \HDUV WKH KRXVLQJ RSHUDWLRQ KDV RSHUDWHG D YHU\ FHQWUDOL]HG EXGJHW SURFHVV 7KDW LV WKH &KLHI +RXVLQJ 2IILFHU &+2f DQG WKH EXGJHW RIILFHU KDYH JHQHUDOO\ PDGH DOO EXGJHW GHFLVLRQV DQG DOORFDWLRQV 7KLV SURFHVV KDV VHUYHG WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ ZHOO +RZHYHU UHFHQW SUHVVXUH IURP WKH VWDII DV ZHOO DV D GHVLUH WR SURYLGH PRUH H[SHULHQFH DQG WUDLQLQJ IRU WKH SURIHVVLRQDO VWDII KDV FDXVHG D UHWKLQNLQJ RI WKH EXGJHW EXLOGLQJ SURFHVV IRU WKH FRPLQJ \HDU 7KH &+2 ZRXOG OLNH WR EHJLQ LQVWLWXWLQJ D GHFHQWUDOL]HG EXGJHW SURFHVV 7KH WDVN LV WR RUJDQL]H WKH V\VWHP WKURXJK ZKLFK WKH &+2 ZLOO UHFHLYH LQSXW DQG KRZ WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG UHTXHVWV ZLOO EH XVHG KRZ WR KROG VWDII DFFRXQWDEOH IRU WKHLU EXGJHWV KRZ WR UHZDUG JRRG EXGJHW PDQDJHUV DQG ZKLFK OHYHOV RI VWDII ZLOO JLYH LQSXW 7$&7,& 5$7,1*6 )25 6,78$7,21 r 5()(5 72 6&$/( $7 723 2) 3$*( r ,17(59(17,21 (',&7 3(568$6,21 3$57,&,3$7,21

PAGE 134

6&25,1* ',5(&7,216 %HVLGH HDFK WDFWLF QDPH UHIOHFW \RXU SUHIHUHQFHV E\ DVVLJQLQJ ($&+ WDFWLF D UDWLQJ QXPEHU IURP WR EDVHG RQ WKH VFDOH VKRZQ EHORZ 1(9(5 $335235,$7(@ >$/:$<6 $335235,$7(@ 6,78$7,21 7KH &KLHI +RXVLQJ 2IILFHU &+2f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r 5()(5 72 6&$/( $7 723 2) 3$*( r ,17(59(17,21 (',&7 3(568$6,21 3$57,&,3$7,21 6,78$7,21 )RU D QXPEHU RI \HDUV WKH KRXVLQJ RSHUDWLRQ KDV LQFOXGHG EDVLF RULHQWDWLRQ DQG WUDLQLQJ SURJUDPV 0RVW RI WKH UHILQHPHQWV WR DQ HPSOR\HHfV MRE FRPH WKURXJK LQGLYLGXDO LQVWUXFWLRQ RI WKH VXSHUYLVRU RU WKURXJK ZKDW WKH\ SLFN XS IURP WKHLU FRZRUNHUV 7KH &KLHI +RXVLQJ 2IILFHU &+2f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r 5()(5 72 6&$/( $7 723 2) 3$*( r ,17(59(17,21 (',&7 3(568$6,21 3$57,&,3$7,21

PAGE 135

6&25,1* ',5(&7,216 %HVLGH HDFK WDFWLF QDPH UHIOHFW \RXU SUHIHUHQFHV E\ DVVLJQLQJ ($&+ WDFWLF D UDWLQJ QXPEHU IURP WR EDVHG RQ WKH VFDOH VKRZQ EHORZ 1(9(5 $335235,$7(@ >$/:$<6 $335235,$7(@ 6,78$7,21 7KH QHZ &KLHI +RXVLQJ 2IILFHU &+2f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r 5()(5 72 6&$/( $7 723 2) 3$*( r ,17(59(17,21 (',&7 3(568$6,21 3$57,&,3$7,21 6,78$7,21 7KH UHVLGHQFH KDOOV KDYH D %ODFN PLQRULW\ SRSXODWLRQ RI DERXW b 7KH 5$ VWDII FRQVLVWV RI DERXW b %ODFN VWXGHQWV :LWKLQ WKH SDVW PRQWK WKH KDOO VWDIIV KDYH UHSRUWHG VFDWWHUHG LQFLGHQWV RI UDFLDO LQWROHUDQFH 7KHUH KDYH EHHQ LQFLGHQWV RI UDFLDO MRNHV DQG VOXUV FRPLQJ IURP ZKLWH VWXGHQWV ZKLOH LQ IORRU ORXQJHV UDFLDOO\ SURYRFDWLYH SRVWHUV DQG V\PEROV DSSHDULQJ LQ D IHZ VWXGHQWVf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r 5()(5 72 6&$/( $7 723 2) 3$*( r ,17(59(17,21 (',&7 3(568$6,21 3$57,&,3$7,21

PAGE 136

6&25,1* ',5(&7,216 %HVLGH HDFK WDFWLF QDPH UHIOHFW \RXU SUHIHUHQFHV E\ DVVLJQLQJ ($&+ WDFWLF D UDWLQJ QXPEHU IURP WR EDVHG RQ WKH VFDOH VKRZQ EHORZ 1(9(5 $335235,$7(@ a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r 5()(5 72 6&$/( $7 723 2) 3$*( r ,17(59(17,21 (',&7 3(568$6,21 3$57,&,3$7,21 6,78$7,21 2QH RI WKH SULQFLSOH JRDOV RI WKH &KLHI +RXVLQJ 2IILFHU &+2f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nV JRDOV ZLOO EH WR RYHUKDXO WKH VWDII SHUIRUPDQFH HYDOXDWLRQ SURFHVV 7KH WDVN IRU WKH &+2 LV WR JHW DQ HYDOXDWLYH SURFHVV LQ SODFH DV VRRQ DV SRVVLEOH VR WKDW KHVKH LV EHWWHU LQIRUPHG DERXW WKH VWDII DQG WKHLU QHHGV 7$&7,& 5$7,1*6 )25 6,78$7,21 r 5()(5 72 6&$/( $7 723 2) 3$*( r ,17(59(17,21 (',&7 3(568$6,21 3$57,&,3$7,21 7KDQN
PAGE 137

,I \RX ZRXOG OLNH D FRS\ RI WKH UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ SOHDVH ILOO LQ WKH VHFWLRQ EHORZ DQG UHWXUQ ZLWK WKH FRPSOHWHG LQVWUXPHQW 127( 7KLV SDJH ZLOO EH GHWDFKHG IURP WKH FRPSOHWHG LQVWUXPHQW VR DV WR PDLQWDLQ WKH DQRQ\PLW\ RI WKH UHVSRQVHV 1DPH 7LGH ,QVWLWXWLRQ $GGUHVV &LW\ 6WDWH =LS &200(176

PAGE 138

$33(1',; 7$%/( 2) *(1(5$/ '(02*5$3+,& ,1)250$7,21 7DEOH -O &KLHI &KLHI 6WXGHQW $IIDLUV +RXVLQJ +RXVLQJ 2IILFHUV 2IILFHUV 6WDII 1 1 1 $YHUDJH ,QVWLWXWLRQDO (QUROOPHQW $YHUDJH +RXVLQJ &DSDFLW\ $YHUDJH
PAGE 139

5()(5(1&(6 ,QWHJULW\ LQ WKH FROOHJH FXUULFXOXP $ UHSRUW WR WKH DFDGHPLF FRPPXQLW\ $VVRFLDWLRQ RI $PHULFDQ &ROOHJHV f :DVKLQJWRQ '& $VVRFLDWLRQ RI $PHULFDQ &ROOHJHV $VWLQ $ / f $FKLHYLQJ HGXFDWLRQDO H[FHOOHQFH 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV %HQQLV : %HQQH t &KLQ 5 f 7KH SODQQLQJ RI FKDQJH WK HGf 1HZ
PAGE 140

*LEVRQ / ,YDQFHYLFK 0 t 'RQQHOO\ + f 2UJDQL]DWLRQV %HKDYLRU VWUXFWXUH SURFHVV WK HGf 3ODQR %XVLQHVV 3XEOLFDWLRQV ,QF *XOLFN / t 8UZLFN / (GVf f 3DSHUV RQ WKH VFLHQFH RI DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ 1HZ
PAGE 141

0LFKDHO 6 5 /XWKDQV ) 2GLPH 6 %XUNH : : t +D\GHQ 6 f 7HFKQLTXHV RI RUJDQL]DWLRQDO FKDQJH 1HZ
PAGE 142

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

PAGE 143

, FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH LI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ UN\r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rLH-/ 'HDQ &ROOHJH RI (GXFDWLRQ A" 'HDQ *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO

PAGE 144

81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$


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.
li

Lastly, to my family go my warmest thanks. My parents, Brannan and Ursula, have
always told me 1 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
ABSTRACT 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
IV

V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
83
Development of the Study 83
Summary of Major Findings 89
Conclusions 91
Implications 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
v

LIST OF TABLES
Table Pape
2-1 Summary of Nutt’s Change Implementation Tactics 25
4-1 Cross-Comparison of the Implementation Tactics
Using a Simple t-test for Significance 57
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
vi

Table Page
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 71
4-10 Analysis of Variance for the Application of the
Persuasion Tactic by Student Affairs Groups
Within Each Functional Area of Management 74
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 76
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 77
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 78
4-14 Analysis of Variance for the Application of the
Edict Tactic by Student Affairs Groups Within
Each Functional Area of Management 80
vii

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
vm

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.
IX

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

2
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."

3
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.

4
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.

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.
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,

6
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

7
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.

8
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.

9
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

10
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.

11
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.

13
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-1
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

14
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 change(s) 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 change(s) they saw
necessary.

16
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
18

19
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 bv 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 bv 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

21
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 change(s) 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 hv 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

23
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 bv 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.

25
Table 2.1
Summary of Nutt’s Change Implementation Tactics (Nutt, 1987)
Tactic
Frequency
of
Occurrence
Key Features
Summary of Key Steps
Intervention
Implementation
21%
1. A manager is delegated
authority to control a
planning process.
2. Groups are used to offer
advice which manager can
veto.
1. New norms used to
identify performance
problems in system that the
strategy is to change.
2. New norms justified
3. Illustrate how
performance can be
improved
4. Formulate plan
5. Show how plan
improves performance
Participation
Implementation
15%
1. Group can specify plan
features, within prestated
constraints.
2. Staff is assigned to
support the planning group.
1. Manager stipulates
strategic needs and
opportunities
2. Form 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

26
Table 2.1 (continued)
Tactic
Frequency
of
Occurrence
Key Features
Summary of Key Steps
Persuasion
Implementation
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
Implementation
16%
1. The manager and staff
share process management.
2. Manager uses position
power to implement the
plan.
1. Sponsor stipulates
strategic needs and
opportunities.
2. Formulate 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

29
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, «fe
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

32
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

33
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.

35
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:

37
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

38
(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.

Chapter Summary
This chapter presented an overview of the literature related to Nutt’s Model and
40
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.
41

42
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.

43
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-1
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

45
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

46
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 improvement(s) 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 change(s) to be initiated. Compliance
with the change is anticipated and expected. CHO monitors change for performance or
situation improvement(s).
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 improvement(s).

48
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 improvement(s).
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

49
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

50
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,
53

54
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.

55
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.

57
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

58
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
Officers
50
3.708
Chief Housing Officers
53
3.857
Housing Professional Staff
52
3.971
0.743
1.68
0.1899
non-significant

60
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.

61
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
Officers
50
4.148
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.

62
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
Officers
50
3.252
Chief Housing Officers
53
2.695
Housing Professional Staff
52
2.670
0.887
7.86
0.0006
significant

63
Table 4-5.
Results of Bonferonni Pairwise Comparison t-tests for the Application of the Persuasion Tactic
bv Student Affairs Groups
Comparison Groups
N
Mean
SD
F-Value
Probability
Implications
Chief Student Affairs
Officers
50
3.252
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
Officers
50
3.252
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

64
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
Officers
50
2.243
Chief Housing Officers
53
2.250
Housing Professional Staff
52
2.418
0.835
0.70
0.5006
non-significant

65
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

66
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 bv Student Affairs Groups
Within Each Functional Area of Management
Planning
Group
N
Mean
SD
F-Value
Probability
Implications
Chief Student Affairs
Officers
50
3.640
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
Officers
50
3.720
Chief Housing Officers
53
4.063
Housing Professional Staff
52
4.019
0.845
2.53
0.0834
non-significant

67
Table 4-7. (cont.)
Leading
Group
N
Mean
SD
F-Value
Probability
Implications
Chief Student Affairs
Officers
50
3.527
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
Officers
50
3.947
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.

68
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.

69
Table 4-8.
Analysis of Variance for the Application of the Participation Tactic bv Student Affairs Groups
Within Each Functional Area of Management
Planning
Group
N
Mean
SD
F-Value
Probability
Implications
Chief Student Affairs
Officers
50
4.353
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
Officers
50
4.007
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
Officers
50
4.233
Chief Housing Officers
53
4.327
Housing Professional Staff
52
4.199
0.750
0.42
0.6601
non-significant

70
Table 4-8. (cont.)
Controlling
Group
N
Mean
SD
F-Value
Probability
Implications
Chief Student Affairs
Officers
50
4.000
Chief Housing Officers
53
4.170
Housing Professional Staff
52
3.763
0.877
2.90
0.0590
non-significant

71
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
Officers
50
4.000
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
Officers
50
4.000
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.

72
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

74
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
Officers
50
3.127
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
Officers
50
3.333
Chief Housing Officers
53
2.698
Housing Professional Staff
52
2.712
1.041
7.04
0.0013
significant

75
Table 4-10. (cont.)
Leading
Group
N
Mean
SD
F-Value
Probability
Implications
Chief Student Affairs
Officers
50
3.200
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
Officers
50
3.347
Chief Housing Officers
53
2.718
Housing Professional Staff
52
3.763
1.027
5.72
0.0042
significant

76
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
Officers
50
3.333
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
Officers
50
3.333
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

77
Table 4-12.
Results of Bonferonni Pairwise Comparison t-tests for the Application of the Persuasion Tactic
bv Student Affairs Groups Within the Management Function of Leading
Comparison Groups
N
Mean
SD
F-Value
Probability
Implications
Chief Student Affairs
Officers
50
3.200
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
Officers
50
3.200
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

78
Table 4-13.
Results of Bonferonni Pairwise Comparison t-tests for the Application of the Persuasion Tactic
bv Student Affairs Groups Within the Management Function of Controlling
Comparison Groups
N
Mean
SD
F-Value
Probability
Implications
Chief Student Affairs
Officers
50
3.347
Chief Housing Officers
53
2.862
1.072
6.04
0.0160
significant
Comparison Groups
N
Mean
SD
F-Value
Probability
Implications
Chief Student Affairs
Officers
50
3.347
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

79
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.

80
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
Officers
50
2.020
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
Officers
50
2.287
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
Officers
50
1.933
Chief Housing Officers
53
1.962
Housing Professional Staff
52
2.032
0.950
0.14
0.8668
non-significant

81
Table 4-14. (cont.)
Controlling
Group
N
Mean
SD
F-Value
Probability
Implications
Chief Student Affairs
Officers
50
2.727
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.

82
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
83

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

85
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.

87
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

88
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.

89
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.

90
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.

91
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.

92
5. There were differences among the three administrators in perception of the
applicability of a tactic based on the type of managerial function.
6. Each tactic represented a unique approach to implementing planned change. That
is, although there are similarities among the tactics, administrators clearly distinguished
between each.
7. Participation, as a change implementation tactic, was clearly the most dominant
choice among all administrators, followed by the intervention tactic. The edict method of
change implementation was the tactic of least choice among all administrators.
8. The persuasion tactic presented the greatest amount if significant differences
between the administrators in preference for applicability of a change tactic.
9. Administrators involved in the management of student housing have both similar
and different perceptions as to the tactics applicable in the implementation of planned change.
This information is of value to any administrative officer for planning for future change
efforts.
Implications
This study identified the differences among three types of administrators and their
preference for the application of certain change implementation tactics described by Nutt
across functional areas of management.
All administrators clearly perceived each tactic as a separate procedure with its own
set of implications and outcomes. Though each had similarities to the others, the perception
of uniqueness was demonstrated. This would indicate that as a group, these administrators
that directly impact the administration of campus housing do have similar thinking as to the
perception of the features and defining issues involved with each of the tactics. Failure to

93
have similar perceptions of the definitions of each tactic would have presented confusion very
early on in any efforts to initiate, develop, or present a strategy for planned change.
For one of the implementation tactics, edict, there was no difference in the application
by any of the student affairs administrative groups, either in total or within any of the
functional areas of management. Edict appears to be perceived as an inappropriate method of
the implementation of change. Rarely did it receive a rating for application to a change
situation above 2.500, the mean for the five (5) point scale. Its overall mean rating across all
situations for all administrators was 2.304. For Nutt, his research demonstrated that the use
of an edict as an implementation tactic was the third most frequently employed tactic, being
used in 16% of the time in his sample organizations. If the pattern is similar in student
housing management, then an edict, even though perceptions are strongly unfavorable towards
its use, may still enjoy surprisingly frequent use.
Participation, as a change implementation tactic, received the highest ratings for
preferred use of all tactics. Though there were no significant differences between any of the
administrators when examined across all management functions, an examination by functional
area revealed a significant difference between chief housing officers and professional housing
staff. This study revealed that differences in the perceived appropriateness for the application
of participation existed when change involved one area of management described as
controlling. In this case, the professional housing staff did not favor participation as a tactic
to the degree that was favored by the chief housing officers. This seems unusual in that such
a view by this group would present the idea of greater preference for less involvement in the
decision making process. However, one might also speculate that the controlling function
translates into tasks of decision making about plans and decisions and how they will be made
to stay on track and then be evaluated. These are tasks that are the responsibility of the chief

94
housing officer and perhaps there is some deference to the position displayed in this outcome.
No significant differences were observed between the chief student affairs officer and the chief
housing officer within any of the management functions involving the participation tactic.
The intervention implementation tactic also received similar support across all student
affairs administrators with no significant differences noted. And when compared within each
management area, there was no significance noted when all groups were compared as a
whole. Even when a pairwise comparison was processed, no differences were noted between
the administrators.
The change implementation tactic of persuasion presented the most statistically
significant differences among the administrative groups. In pairwise comparisons within each
of the functional areas of management, chief student affairs officers differed with both chief
housing officers and professional housing staff in the willingness to apply this tactic, with the
chief student affairs officer favoring this tactic to a greater degree than either of the other two
administrative groups. Only in the area of planning did the chief student affairs officer not
differ with the other two housing administrative groups. Therefore, unless the task involved
planning functions, chief student affairs officers favored, to a greater degree, the use of
"experts" or outside consultants to assist in developing and implementing the change
necessary. It is interesting to note that this tactic represents the single greatest area of
disagreement in application of the change tactics. It is also interesting to note that the only
functional area that was not different among the administrative groups was planning. Of all
the management tasks, planning would have seemed the logical area in which one might feel
compelled to rely on experts. In this case, the chief student affairs officers gave a lower
overall rating to the persuasion tactic within the planning function rather than the other two
administrator groups giving it a higher rating.

95
Overall, there is a great deal of similarity in the preference pattern for application of
the four tactics. Only in a few cases are there statistically significant differences among the
three student affairs groups. Perhaps this can be attributed to the similarity in backgrounds,
training, education, or experiences.
In a significant step, this study extended Nutt’s model to a different population and
work setting. In his work, Nutt developed his model by evaluating actual change situations
within the service industries. This study supported the application of Nutt’s model to the
evaluation of change situations in education administration and extended the terminology and
definitions of the model to higher education. The extension of this model into the research
literature of higher education should serve to open additional areas for study.
In summary, it appears that Nutt’s tactics were viewed as an applicable taxonomy for
the description of change implementation tactics. Student affairs professionals, no matter
what administrative level, generally perceive the application of change tactics in a similar
fashion except when it involves the use of consultants or experts. Participation as a
implementation tactic still holds great favor among administrators and as a tactic received the
highest rating of all the tactics. The managerial fiat or edict is not viewed as a very
applicable tactic by any of the administrative groups. It should also be noted that while
participation as a tactic received the strongest rating of all the tactics, according to Nutt’s
research it did not produce the success rate that the intervention tactic. And though from this
study, it is clear that the student affairs administrator respondents clearly suggested that
participation and intervention were the most appropriate tactics for all the managerial tasks,
Nutt’s research points out that these two methods were not as frequently applied as was the
persuasion tactic. If this same pattern holds in the administration of student housing, then
what administrators think is the most appropriate change implementation tactic is not the one

96
being applied. These issues cannot be determined from this research, but the possibility
remains.
Implication for Future Research
This study supports the need for future research in numerous areas. This study was
limited to three administrative groups within the same supervisory line and from four-year
public institutions. The study was limited to four tactics for change implementation. The
study was also designed to indicate where differences existed but not how or why those
differences existed. The following are some suggestions for possible future research:
1. This study focused on the applicability of the tactics. Future research could focus
on success rates after implementation or on the frequency of application.
2. The study was limited to twelve situational events grouped into four functional
management areas. Because there is debate as to the actual number of descriptive categories
necessary to adequately describe the nature of management, perhaps future research could
choose a different set of functional area descriptions or a different number of functional areas
so that there is a more narrow breakdown of response categories.
3. This study was focused on current thinking and strategies. Future studies might
focus on historical development of implementation tactics among higher education
administrators.
4. The study examined the responses of administrators from four-year public
institutions. Further research might be focused upon administrators from community colleges,
private institutions, or a comparison between each.
5. Age, gender, and education were not examined in the study to determine their
influence on the perception of applicability of the tactics. Further study of these areas could
help provide information on these external but influencing factors.

97
6. The study seemed to find that most significant differences existed between the
roles of chief student affairs officers and chief housing officers. Because these two roles are
generally significant players in the administrative structure of a student affairs organization,
additional study could be developed to examine other differences that might exist in the
management philosophies of these to positions.

APPENDIX A
INSTRUCTIONS TO JUDGES FOR VALIDATION OF SCENARIOS
FOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Dear Colleague,
Thank you for your willingness to assist with this project. This study will ultimately
investigate the perceptions of Chief Housing Officers as related to the implementation tactics
of planned change. In order to develop an instrument to study this area, a series of situations
were developed that reflect problems that Chief Housing Officers might encounter in the
management of a housing operation. Your assistance is needed in the process of validating
each situation in two areas. The two areas of concern are: 1) does the situation described
depict a circumstance that could be faced by a chief housing officer managing a college or
university housing operation, and 2) does the situation have, as its central focus, the
"function" of the management process for which it was designed ( each situation may involve
all functions of the management process, but each has one particular function as its primary
focus ).
Please read the four definitions of the functions of the management process given below.
Then read each of the proposed situations for the study. Please respond to the questions
below each of the scenarios.
Please return the validation questionnaire in the envelope provided.
Thank you for your time and willingness to assist.
Sincerely,
Branan D. Woodham
98

APPENDIX B
SCENARIO VALIDATION INSTRUMENT
For the purposes of this study the definitions of the functional elements of the
management process are provided 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
The organizing function includes all managerial activities that are taken to translate the
required planned activities into a structure of tasks and authority.
LEADING
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 jobs 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.
This function is essentially one of evaluation and those steps that precede and follow an
evaluative process.
99

100
SITUATION 1 During the past school year you and your staff experienced the first case of AIDS in the
residence halls. There was extreme turmoil on the staff (2 RAs and 1 graduate staff resigned). The news
media were constantly pressing for information, and the parents of other residents were highly concerned if not
threatening at times. Many of the problems stemmed from poor training of your staff, lack of education and
understanding about the disease, and the lack of a policy from which to operate. The Vice-President is
expecting a full report for her review on your plans for the coming year in terms of operating policy, staff
training and student information programming. A preliminary outline and interim policy is due in two weeks
and the full report is due in two months.
1) THE SITUATION DESCRIBED ABOVE IS INTENDED TO HAVE THE MANAGEMENT FUNCTION OF ’PLANNING”
AS ITS FOCUS. WOULD YOU: (circle one) AGREE DISAGREE THAT THIS IS ACHIEVED.
IF ’DISAGREE’ IS YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW YOU WOULD CHANGE
THE SCENARIO TO ACHIEVE ITS INTENDED FOCUS.
2) IS THIS A REALISTIC SITUATION THAT COULD BE CONFRONTED BY A CHIEF HOUSING OFFICER ?
(circle one): YES NO
IF ’NO* IS YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW IT COULD BE MADE REALISTIC.
SITUATION 2 You are the new Chief Housing Officer for a large and complex housing operation. For the
past several years the CHO before you has kept rental rate increases to a very low rate. Most year’s increases
have been less than 3%, and 3 out of the last 5 years there have been no rate increases at all. At this time
reserve funds are low, but in not critically low, and the operation as a whole is financially sound. However,
your goals for the housing program call for several expansions and renovations to operations or facilities. The
addition of computers and computer applications is severely lacking, salaries should be increased, new
equipment and furniture should be purchased, staffing needs to be increased in some areas, fire code corrections
appear to be needed (none have been ordered however), etc. You feel there is a need to have a number of
years of higher rental rate increases to move the organization and facilities into the future. Your goals may not
be shared by all of your staff but is likely to be supported by those in higher authority.
1) THE SITUATION DESCRIBED ABOVE IS INTENDED TO HAVE THE MANAGEMENT FUNCTION OF ’PLANNING’
AS ITS FOCUS. WOULD YOU: (circle one) AGREE DISAGREE THAT THIS IS ACHIEVED.
IF ’DISAGREE* IS YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW YOU WOULD CHANGE
THE SCENARIO TO ACHIEVE ITS INTENDED FOCUS.
2) IS THIS A REALISTIC SITUATION THAT COULD BE CONFRONTED BY A CHIEF HOUSING OFFICER ?
(circle one): YES NO
IF ’NO’ IS YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW IT COULD BE MADE REALISTIC.

101
SITUATION 3 At your institution all of the residence halls have been of a traditional type, that is, double
loaded corridor halls (rooms on either side), floor lounge, community bathrooms at each end, generally holding
45 residents per floor. Your staffing pattern has been one Resident Assistant per floor and one Hall Director
per building. Nine months from now, in the Fall, you will open a new residence facility that is an apartment
style building. There will be apartments on four levels, all with outside entrances. Each apartment will house
four students in single bedrooms and is equipped with its own bathroom, kitchen and living-dining room area.
Your concern at this time is with the staffing pattern that would best fit this facility and how to apply your
already established ’housing program’ in such a facility.
1) THE SITUATION DESCRIBED ABOVE IS INTENDED TO HAVE THE MANAGEMENT FUNCTION OF ’PLANNING'
AS ITS FOCUS. WOULD YOU: (circle one) AGREE DISAGREE THAT THIS IS ACHIEVED.
IF ’DISAGREE’ IS YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW YOU WOULD CHANGE
THE SCENARIO TO ACHIEVE ITS INTENDED FOCUS.
2) IS THIS A REALISTIC SITUATION THAT COULD BE CONFRONTED BY A CHIEF HOUSING OFFICER ?
(circle one): YES NO
IF ’NO’ IS YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW IT COULD BE MADE REALISTIC.
SITUATION 4 In six months time you will acquire the maintenance responsibility of the residence halls from
the physical plant department. You have anticipated this action so some planning has been done in your own
mind. Now it is time for you to organize this new responsibility into reality. You must make changes in your
organizational structure, budget, equipment inventory, parts supply, storage facilities, and supervisory
responsibility. The addition of this whole new segment of staff and responsibility will have an affect on several
staff positions and operating procedures (and habits) within your organization.
1) THE SITUATION DESCRIBED ABOVE IS INTENDED TO HAVE THE MANAGEMENT FUNCTION OF ’ORGANIZING" AS ITS
FOCUS. WOULD YOU: (circle one) AGREE DISAGREE THAT THIS IS ACHIEVED.
IF ’DISAGREE’ IS YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW YOU WOULD CHANGE THE
SCENARIO TO ACHIEVE ITS INTENDED FOCUS.
2) IS THIS A REALISTIC SITUATION THAT COULD BE CONFRONTED BY A CHIEF HOUSING OFFICER ?
(circle one): YES NO
IF ’NO’ IS YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW IT COULD BE MADE REALISTIC.

102
SITUATION 5 As the Chief Housing Officer of medium size operation, you have begun to observe that your
operation is functioning at a level that is not as efficient as it should be. You have noticed problems in the
areas of information and communication, training, programming, budget building and other areas in which your
full-time staff has high input. In your current staff structure you have two levels of full-time staff between you
and the resident assistants (undergraduate staff). You feel that one of your problems is that your organization is
too "top heavy". It is taking too long for decisions and information to make their way through the levels of
staff. You feel that you probably should re-organize so that only one level of full-time staff would be needed.
This change, as you envision it, could save money and make the organization more responsive to student needs.
However, it is likely your staff will feel different because their jobs would be affected. One way or the other,
something needs to be done and soon.
1) THE SITUATION DESCRIBED ABOVE IS INTENDED TO HAVE THE MANAGEMENT FUNCTION OF "ORGANIZING* AS ITS
FOCUS. WOULD YOU: (circle one) AGREE DISAGREE THAT THIS IS ACHIEVED.
IF 'DISAGREE* IS YOUR ANSWER. PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW YOU WOULD CHANGE THE
SCENARIO TO ACHIEVE ITS INTENDED FOCUS.
2) IS THIS A REALISTIC SITUATION THAT COULD BE CONFRONTED BY A CHIEF HOUSING OFFICER ?
(circle one): YES NO
IF ’NO’ IS YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW IT COULD BE MADE REALISTIC.
SITUATION 6 For many years you have operated a very centralized budget process. That is, you and your
budget officer have generally made all budget decisions and allocations with very little input from your staff.
This process has served you well. However, recent pressure from your staff as well as a desire to provide
more experience to your staff has caused you to re-think the budget building process for the coming year. You
would like to begin instituting a decentralized budget process. Your task is to organize the system through
which you will receive input, how you will make use of that information and requests, how you will hold people
accountable for their budgets, how to reward good budget managers, in general, how you will go about
organizing the whole thing.
1) THE SITUATION DESCRIBED ABOVE IS INTENDED TO HAVE THE MANAGEMENT FUNCTION OF "ORGANIZING" AS ITS
FOCUS. WOULD YOU: (circle one) AGREE DISAGREE THAT THIS IS ACHIEVED.
IF ’DISAGREE’ IS YOUR ANSWER. PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW YOU WOULD CHANGE THE
SCENARIO TO ACHIEVE fTS INTENDED FOCUS.
2) IS THIS A REALISTIC SITUATION THAT COULD BE CONFRONTED BY A CHIEF HOUSING OFFICER ?
(circle one): YES NO
IF ’NO* IS YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW IT COULD BE MADE REALISTIC.

103
SITUATION 7 As Chief Housing Officer of a fairly large staff, you have made it a point to drop a little note
or offer a word of praise to employees that you observe or learn have done an exceptionally good job at
something. In a recent staff meeting one of your Assistant Directors mentioned how a note you sent to one of
her Hall Directors really had made a positive and motivating impact. This comment has stimulated the idea on
your part that perhaps it is time your organization developed and implemented a more formalized recognition
program that involved all of your staff. You have decided that this will be one of the major goals for your
organization for the coming academic year, now nine months away.
1) THE SITUATION DESCRIBED ABOVE IS INTENDED TO HAVE THE MANAGEMENT FUNCTION OF 'LEADING' AS ITS
FOCUS. WOULD YOU: (circle one) AGREE DISAGREE THAT THIS IS ACHIEVED.
IF ’DISAGREE’ IS YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW YOU WOULD CHANGE THE
SCENARIO TO ACHIEVE ITS INTENDED FOCUS.
2) IS THIS A REALISTIC SITUATION THAT COULD BE CONFRONTED BY A CHIEF HOUSING OFFICER ?
(circle one): YES NO
IF ’NO’ IS YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW IT COULD BE MADE REALISTIC.
SITUATION 8 For a number of years your housing program has included basic orientation and training
programs. Most of the refinements to an employee’s job come through individual instruction of the supervisor
or through what they pick up from their co-workers. You feel that your current orientation program is
sufficient to get people started on the job, but that there is much more to be done with the area of in-service and
developmental training. You will need the support and involvement of many facets of your organization if this
training program is to work. You would like to create a training program that would not only help staff with
their current work but would also provide them with life skills and skills to assist them with upward job
mobility.
1) THE SITUATION DESCRIBED ABOVE IS INTENDED TO HAVE THE MANAGEMENT FUNCTION OF "LEADING' AS ITS
FOCUS. WOULD YOU: (circle one) AGREE DISAGREE THAT THIS IS ACHIEVED.
IF ’DISAGREE’ IS YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW YOU WOULD CHANGE THE
SCENARIO TO ACHIEVE ITS INTENDED FOCUS.
2) IS THIS A REALISTIC SITUATION THAT COULD BE CONFRONTED BY A CHIEF HOUSING OFFICER ?
(circle one): YES NO
IF ’NO’ IS YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW IT COULD BE MADE REALISTIC.

104
SITUATION 9 As the new Chief Housing Officer you observe that your staff has operated on a fairly
autonomous basis for many years. There is no central set of guidelines or policy statements published from
your department. Staff generally rely on their own decision making skills, refer to past group staff discussions
or call you for information. You feel that this situation is not conducive to consistent, nor quality, decision
making. As the Chief Housing Officer, you feel it is imperative that daily decision making be more consistent
and uniform. You have concluded that something must be done to standardize and then publish general and
specific housing policies for your staff.
1) THE SITUATION DESCRIBED ABOVE IS INTENDED TO HAVE THE MANAGEMENT FUNCTION OF 'LEADING’ AS ITS
FOCUS. WOULD YOU: (circle one) AGREE DISAGREE THAT THIS IS ACHIEVED.
IF 'DISAGREE’ IS YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW YOU WOULD CHANGE THE
SCENARIO TO ACHIEVE ITS INTENDED FOCUS.
2) IS THIS A REALISTIC SITUATION THAT COULD BE CONFRONTED BY A CHIEF HOUSING OFFICER ?
(circle one): YES NO
IF NO’ IS YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW fT COULD BE MADE REALISTIC.
SITUATION 10 As a new Chief Housing Officer you are particularly interested in having a forum through
which you can interact weekly with your staff, both on a group and individual basis. The format, content and
direction of these meetings have not been determined in your mind. The current staff is used to being
communicated with through memorandum, by making appointments to discuss important issues and through
meetings with the Director at his calling. You feel that there needs to be a change in this situation.
1) THE SITUATION DESCRIBED ABOVE IS INTENDED TO HAVE THE MANAGEMENT FUNCTION OF ’CONTROLLING' AS
ITS FOCUS. WOULD YOU: (circle one) AGREE DISAGREE THAT THIS IS ACHIEVED.
IF ’DISAGREE’ IS YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW YOU WOULD CHANGE THE
SCENARIO TO ACHIEVE ITS INTENDED FOCUS.
2) IS THIS A REALISTIC SITUATION THAT COULD BE CONFRONTED BY A CHIEF HOUSING OFFICER ?
(circle one): YES NO
IF ’NO’ IS YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW IT COULD BE MADE REALISTIC.

105
SITUATION 11 Your maintenance and custodial staff frequently must work on joint projects, such as the
renovating and cleaning of family housing apartments between occupants, and the cleaning and general repair of
the residence halls between semesters. Each group thinks that their work is the most important, and deadline-
oriented. There is an insistence by both groups that they cannot work in the same location at the same time and
get their work done quickly and effectively. Because of a change in the academic calendar and a general need
to improve efficiency overall, you as the Chief Housing Officer, must correct this situation.
1) THE SITUATION DESCRIBED ABOVE IS INTENDED TO HAVE THE MANAGEMENT FUNCTION OF ’CONTROLLING" AS
ITS FOCUS. WOULD YOU: (circle one) AGREE DISAGREE THAT THIS IS ACHIEVED.
IF 'DISAGREE’ IS YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW YOU WOULD CHANGE THE
SCENARIO TO ACHIEVE ITS INTENDED FOCUS.
2) IS THIS A REALISTIC SITUATION THAT COULD BE CONFRONTED BY A CHIEF HOUSING OFFICER ?
(circle one): YES NO
IF 'NO' IS YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW IT COULD BE MADE REALISTIC.
SITUATION 12 This year one of your primary goals as Chief Housing Officer is to overhaul your
organization’s staff performance evaluation process. Currently, the staff is evaluated on an annual basis by their
immediate supervisor. There are no formal guidelines or forms for staff to use. They simply describe
performance in letter form. You are aware that there are real inconsistencies in how well these appraisals are
done and how they are used with staff. Also, due to the lack of accurate and consistent performance evaluations,
you do not feel that you have an adequate handle on how well each staff member is performing within your
organization. From your readings, training, and experience, you know that performance evaluation can be a
useful tool for the positive development of all levels of staff. You are convinced that you should and can have a
new performance appraisal process in place by the beginning of Fall Resident Assistant and Hall Director
training six months from now. The task before you is to design and implement some kind of improved system
in the coming months.
1) THE SITUATION DESCRIBED ABOVE IS INTENDED TO HAVE THE MANAGEMENT FUNCTION OF "CONTROLLING" AS
ITS FOCUS. WOULD YOU: (circle one) AGREE DISAGREE THAT THIS IS ACHIEVED.
IF ’DISAGREE’ IS YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW YOU WOULD CHANGE THE
SCENARIO TO ACHIEVE ITS INTENDED FOCUS.
2) IS THIS A REALISTIC SITUATION THAT COULD BE CONFRONTED BY A CHIEF HOUSING OFFICER ?
(circle one): YES NO
IF ’NO’ IS YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE INDICATE ON THE COMMENT PAGE HOW IT COULD BE MADE REALISTIC.

106
Comments:
Your comments concerning any of the situations described above would be appreciated:

107
APPENDIX C
INSTRUCTIONS TO JUDGES AND VALIDATION SURVEY FOR VALIDATION
OF RESPONSES FOR STUDY SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Dear Drs. Wattenbarger, Sandeen, and James:
Thank you for your assistance in the validation of the responses for the instrument being
developed for use in this study. The study will investigate the perceptions of chief housing
officers concerning the tactics used to implement planned change in the management of a
college or university housing operation. The specific implementation tactics under
investigation were suggested in a research report by Paul C. Nutt entitled Tactics of
Implementation. (Academy of Management Journal, 1986, Vol. 29, No. 2, 230-261).
The validation of the responses is a critical part of the development of the instrument.
Your involvement will help insure that the responses accurately reflect the four change
implementation tactics described by Nutt in his research.
On the succeeding pages are the descriptions of the four implementation tactics as
described by Nutt in his research. Following these four descriptions will be four descriptions
intended as responses for the study instrumentation. Below each of these proposed
descriptions will be a response area. Please follow these steps for the validation of the
responses:

APPENDIX D
VALIDATION OF RESPONSES INSTRUMENT
1. Read the four implementation tactics of planned change as detailed by Nutt in
his research.
2. Read each of the proposed responses.
3. In the place provided beneath each proposed response indicate which of Nutt’s
tactics is most accurately represented by that response.
4. Judge each response independently and do not use the process of elimination
to determine the implementation tactic represented by the response.
5. Please note any comments or suggestions in the space provided.
SUMMARY OF NUTT’S CHANGE IMPLEMENTATION TACTICS
The following are the four descriptions of the change implementation tactics as detailed in
Nutt’s research.
1. Implementation bv Intervention. "To initiate change processes, the manager-sponsors became
protagonists by creating rationales for action in the minds of key people. Appraising performance
levels and demonstrating performance inadequacies by applying new norms created these
rationales. Sponsor-managers often cited comparable organizations with better performance to
justify new performance norms. In addition, they used descriptions of how current practices
could be improved to demonstrate the feasibility of changes. These suggestions defined options
that those involved in the change process had to consider during development (of change
concepts). Many interventionists recognized that users were excellent sources of ideas, so during
development, sponsors often formed task forces made up of users to identify inefficient and ill-
advised procedures. Task forces offered ideas or acted as sounding boards, providing
commentaries on changes as they evolved. Sponsors, however, retained the power to veto these
recommendations. Change processes ended following demonstrations that adopting changes could
overcome deficiencies in performance. Performance monitoring followed installation (of
changes)."
108

109
2.Implementation bv Participation. "To use participation, manager-sponsors initiated change
processes by stipulating needs or opportunities, and then assigning decisions for developmental
activities. Such stipulations create objectives with varying degrees of explicitness. Sponsors
select task force members to represent certain points of view or to give information thought to
be important. Sponsors delegated responsibility for guiding project development processes to task
forces. Such delegation specified constraints and expectations and identified support staff. Task
forces arrived at consensus about specifics. They make recommendations. The co-optation
implicit in this delegation became a vehicle to promote compliance. (The participation) process
closed with performance monitoring."
3.Implementation bv Persuasion. "In implementation by persuasion, manager-sponsors made
little effort to manage change processes and monitor their progress due to disinterest, lack of
knowledge, or powerful or persuasive protagonist. The change processes began with either the
sponsors or experts stipulating needs or opportunities. In persuasion implementation there is
little, if any managerial review. Sponsors allow experts to control development. Experts stressed
options and their justifications. Experts presented products for approval. They made attempts
to sell options that performed best, using projected benefits to argue for adoption. Sponsors took
passive role, encouraging sales pitches from interested parties so they could weigh imperatives
to act. Sponsors became active after active sales pitches had been made, often demanding
extensive documentation of benefits that required returning to the evaluation stage. Performance
monitoring closed the process."
4.Implementation bv Edict. "Implementation by edict involved sponsors’ using control and
personal power while avoiding any form of participation. This tactic had three key features.
First, sponsors’ control of change processes was intermittent with no common theme. There was
no recognizable pattern in sponsors’ monitoring and no formal delegations of responsibility.
Experts and users had little power. Second, sponsors did not discuss changes with users or
attempt to rationalize the need for changes; they expected user compliance. They demonstrated
neither imperatives for changes nor their feasibility. The justification steps found in the
intervention tactic were not observed. Third, sponsors issued adoption directives by managerial
fiat even when lengthy developmental processes occurred. Sponsors merely announced changes
and prescribed expected behavior using memoranda, formal presentations, or on-the-job
instructions that dictated the expected behavior of users."

110
Responses for Study Instrument:
RESPONSE 1
You, as the chief housing officer, become actively involved in serving as sponsor of the change(s), by
establishing new goals and norms, applying these to the current situation, and identifying the current
performance or situational shortcomings. You invest time and energy showing other staff the value of the
planned change(s) by demonstrating improvements possible or the feasibility of improving practices. Once
other staff are adequately informed of the benefits of the planned changes, you implement them and follow
up by demonstrating the improvement in performance or the situation.
THE RESPONSE STATEMENT ABOVE ACCURATELY REPRESENTS WHICH OF NUTT’S FOUR
IMPLEMENTATION TACTICS:
CHECK ONE:
INTERVENTION PARTICIPATION PERSUASION EDICT
REPRESENTS NONE OF THE TACTICS
RESPONSE 2
You, as chief housing officer and sponsor of the planned change(s), initiate the process by identifying
the needs and/or opportunities. You delegate substantial responsibility for guiding change development
processes to task forces, providing them with expectations and constraints. Task Forces develop
recommendations and recommendations are implemented by you and monitored for performance or
situation improvement.
THE RESPONSE STATEMENT ABOVE ACCURATELY REPRESENTS WHICH OF NUTT’S FOUR
IMPLEMENTATION TACTICS:
CHECK ONE:
INTERVENTION PARTICIPATION PERSUASION EDICT
REPRESENTS NONE OF THE TACTICS

Ill
RESPONSE 3
You, as chief housing officer and sponsor of the change(s), identify the needs and/or opportunities.
You turn the control of the development of the change process over to experts, such as paid consultants
or others generally outside of your organization, and in general remain apart from 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. You encourage sales pitches from interested parties so that you and/or staff
can weigh imperatives to act. You implement changes as recommended by experts and monitor for
performance or situation improvement.
THE RESPONSE STATEMENT ABOVE ACCURATELY REPRESENTS WHICH OF NUTT’S FOUR
IMPLEMENTATION TACTICS:
CHECK ONE:
INTERVENTION PARTICIPATION PERSUASION EDICT
REPRESENTS NONE OF THE TACTICS
RESPONSE 4
You, as chief housing officer and sponsor of the planned change(s), stipulate needs and opportunities,
weigh alternatives and select the necessary steps to accomplish the change(s) necessary. Little or no input
is sought or desired from others on the staff. Directives are issued and change(s) are initiated.
THE RESPONSE STATEMENT ABOVE ACCURATELY REPRESENTS WHICH OF NUTT’S FOUR
IMPLEMENTATION TACTICS:
CHECK ONE:
INTERVENTION PARTICIPATION PERSUASION EDICT
REPRESENTS NONE OF THE TACTICS
Please return completed form to me in the enclosed envelope by May 1. If you have any questions
regarding this request or about the study, you may contact me at 392-6031. Your assistance in this project
is greatly appreciated.

112
APPENDIX E
LETTER TO ACUHO-I RESEARCH AND INFORMATION COMMITTEE
SEEKING SUPPORT FOR STUDY
12 October 1989
Dr. Rita Moser
Chairperson, ACUHO-I Research & Information Committee
104 Cawthon Hall
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306-2036
Dear Rita,
As I mentioned to you at the ACUHO-I Conference, I am at that point in my doctoral studies
where I will soon be distributing my research instrument. Because of the nature and scope of
my study I would like to have an endorsement of the study by your committee. I feel that
such an endorsement will add credibility to the study and help increase my return rate from
those members of the housing profession included in the sample.
The study I am presenting investigates the use of change implementation tactics through the
use of hypothetical situations centered around the role and functions of the Chief Housing
Officer. Three levels of student affairs staff involved in the management of residence halls
are the subjects in the study. They are the Chief Student Affairs Officer, the Chief Housing
Officer and a professional member of the housing staff (Associate or Assistant Director level).
I will be examining how each of these three levels of student affairs staff respond to twelve
hypothetical situations developed so as to indicate a need for some form of change. The
twelve situations have been developed to reflect the four principle management tasks of
planning, organizing, leading and controlling (three situations per management task). The
study will request that each respondent react to each situation by rating, on a 1 to 5 scale,
each of four change implementation tactics. In doing this the respondents will be indicating,
by their rating, the degree to which they prefer that tactic as an approach to effect the
change(s) they deem necessary from the hypothetical situations presented in the study. From
the data generated I hope to examine the relationships between each of the three levels of
staff, each of the four tactics, and between the four principle types of management tasks.

113
The significance of the study revolves around the necessity for smooth management of change
within the residence halls. I hope that the study will reveal interesting data on the
management style and expectations of each of these three levels of interrelating and interactive
management positions affecting the residence halls as well as some specific data on tactics for
the implementation of change.
My sample will be drawn solely from the ACUHO-I membership. I will be surveying 100
randomly selected public institutions in each of the three student affairs positions for a total of
a 300 person sample. I have restricted my sample population institutions to those with an on-
campus single student populations of 2500 or greater.
I hope the information I have provided here is sufficient for what you need to evaluate the
study. If you need anything more please let me know. Also, if there is something I must do
for ACUHO-I for this support please let me know so that I might comply.
Thank you for your help,
Bran an D. Woodham

APPENDIX F
COVER LETTER FOR SURVEY DIRECTED TO
CHIEF HOUSING OFFICERS AND PROFESSIONAL HOUSING STAFF
114
November 15, 1989
Dear Colleague,
Mr. Branan Woodham is a research assistant and graduate student in the Institute of
Higher Education at the University of Florida, as well as, an Assistant Director of Housing
with the University’s Division of Housing. He is conducting a study, under the sponsorship
of the Institute, and with the support of the Division of Housing and the ACUHO-I Research
and Information Committee (see accompanying letter), of change implementation within the
management structure of college and university student housing.
The study involves an investigation of the preferred application of change implementation
tactics of three levels of student affairs/housing staff directly involved in the change making
process associated with on-campus student housing. The three staff levels are the Chief
Student Affairs Officer, the Chief Housing Officer, and a Professional Member of the
housing/residence life staff. This study may provide some insight into the decision making
and implementation processes involved with planned change and, therefore, be of great
assistance in training, leadership development, conflict avoidance, and in the productive
management of student residence organizations. Because of your current leadership role
within housing/residence life, you are invited to participate in this study.
Your individual responses will be kept confidential. The code number on the survey is
being used solely to identify returned surveys. Please return the completed survey in the
self-addressed, stamped envelope bv Friday, December 1, 1989.

115
We appreciate your participation in this important research. You can receive a summary
report of the research results by completing and returning the portion of the survey designated
for this information (back of the title page).
Cordially yours,
James L. Wattenbarger, Director James C. Grimm, Director
Institute of Higher Education Division of Housing
Branan D. Woodham, Research Assistant
Institute of Higher Education

116
APPENDIX G
COVER LETTER FOR SURVEY DIRECTED TO CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS
November 15, 1989
Dear Colleague,
Mr. Branan Woodham is a research assistant and graduate student in the Institute of
Higher Education at the University of Florida, as well as, an Assistant Director of Housing
with the University’s Division of Housing. He is conducting a study, under the sponsorship
of the Institute, and with the support of the Division of Housing and the ACUHO-I Research
and Information Committee (see accompanying letter), of change implementation within the
management structure of college and university student housing.
The study involves an investigation of the preferred application of change implementation
tactics of three levels of student affairs/housing staff directly involved in the change making
process associated with on-campus student housing. The three staff levels are the Chief
Student Affairs Officer, the Chief Housing Officer, and a Professional Member of the
housing/residence life staff. This study may provide some insight into the decision making
and implementation processes involved with planned change and, therefore, be of great
assistance in training, leadership development, conflict avoidance, and in the productive
management of student residence organizations. Because of your current leadership role
within student affairs, you are invited to participate in this study.
Your individual responses will be kept confidential. The code number on the survey is
being used solely to identify returned surveys. Please return the completed survey in the
self-addressed, stamped envelope bv Friday. December 1. 1989.

117
We appreciate your participation in this important research. You can receive a summary
report of the research results by completing and returning the portion of the survey designated
for this information (back of the title page).
Cordially yours,
James L. Wattenbarger, Director
Institute of Higher Education
C. Arthur Sandeen
Vice President for Student Affairs
Branan D. Woodham, Research Assistant
Institute of Higher Education

118
APPENDIX H
FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO RESPONDENTS
January 2, 1990
Dear ,
A few weeks ago you were mailed a survey instrument entitled A Study of Change
Implementation in Student Housing Management. This study is being sponsored by the
Institute of Higher Education with the support of The Association of College and University
Housing Officers - International. To date, response to the study has been very positive.
According to our records, we have not yet received your completed survey. It is possible
that it is currently in route to us. If this is the case, please disregard this letter.
However, if you have not yet responded to the survey, we would like to encourage you to
do so at this time. Because of cost a duplicate survey has not been included with this letter.
If you need a duplicate copy of the survey please write or call and one will be sent to you
immediately. You may contact Mr. Branan Woodham, Division of Housing, University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32611 or call (904) 392-6031.
Your involvement with this research will help us insure a representative perception of the
implementation of change in the student affairs area. Please return your completed survey by
Friday. January 12, 1990.
Your cooperation and participation in this study is appreciated.
Cordially yours,
Branan D. Woodham, Research Assistant
Institute of Higher Education
cc: Dr. James Wattenbarger, Director
Institute of Higher Education

APPENDIX I
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
A STUDY OF CHANGE IMPLEMENTATION
IN STUDENT HOUSING MANAGEMENT
This instrument is designed to investigate the preferred application of certain tactics to the
implementation of planned change by three groups of Student Affairs Staff involved in the management of
a college or university student housing operation. The three groups of staff are the Chief Student Affairs
Officer, the Chief Housing Officer, and a professional member of the housing staff.
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTIVE DATA:
I. INSTITUTION: («)
(b) FALL 1989 TOTAL INSTITUTIONAL ENROLLMENT: (full and part-time)
II. STUDENT AFFAIRS/HOUSING STAFF (person completing this instrument):
(a) TITLE:
(b) GENDER (circle):
(c) AGE (circle):
(e) YEARS EMPLOYED IN CURRENT POSITION:
(d) EDUCATIONAL LEVEL:
(circle one)
1. Male
1. Under 26
1. No Degree
2. Female
2. 26-35
2. Bachelors
3. 36 - 45
3. Masters
4. 46-55
4. Specialist
5. Over 55
5. Doctorate
6. Professional
(Law/Medicine)
(f) YEARS EMPLOYED PROFESSIONALLY IN STUDENT AFFAIRS/HOUSING:
III.HOUSING/RESIDENCE LIFE OPERATION:
(a) TOTAL SINGLE STUDENT HOUSING CAPACITY:
(b) MALES: (c) FEMALES:
(d) TOTAL FAMILY HOUSING UNITS:
(e) TOTAL FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES WITHIN HOUSING/RESIDENCE LIFE
ORGANIZATION:
(0 OF THIS TOTAL, HOW MANY ARE FULL-TIME CAREER HOUSING/RESIDENCE LIFE
PROFESSIONALS
(ie. Hall Directors, Coordinators, Associate and Assistant Directors):
CODE NUMBER:
119

120
DIRECTIONS
On the following pages are presented twelve situations that may occur in the management of a
residence hall system. Each situation implies that some sort of change is necessary. The specific
change necessary in any given situation is not as important for this study as is your perception of the
approach(es) or tactic(s) you feel to be appropriate to address the implementation of the planned
change. On the following page are descriptions of four tactics for the implementation of planned
change. Each of the tactics is described in detail and will need to be referenced frequently for
completion of the instrument.
Read each of the situations carefully. The situations and tactics are centered around the position
and role of the Chief Housing Officer. However, please respond to each situation as if it were YOUR
responsibility to decide on the course of action for that situation. For each of the situations described
in the instrument, evaluate EACH tactic according to your perception of that tactic’s appropriateness
for the implementation of the necessary change(s). Rate each tactic on a one (1) to five (5) scale,
with 1 indicating a "never appropriate tactic", to 5 indicating an "always appropriate tactic". Please
evaluate each tactic for each situation. DO NOT skip or leave out a rating. Evaluate each tactic
independently of the others. (See examples below).
EXAMPLES OF RESPONSES:
SCORING DIRECTIONS:
Beside each tactic name, reflect your preferences by assigning EACH tactic a rating number from 1 to 5 based on the scale
shown below. Your rating of each tactic should indicate the degree of appropriateness for each tactic as an approach to the
implementation of change(s) for the situation described.
[NEVER APPROPRIATE] <- 1 2 3 4 5 -> [ALWAYS APPROPRIATE]
EXAMPLE 1:
TACTIC RATINGS FOR smJATION 0: * REFER TO SCALE AT TOP OF PAGE *
INTERVENTION EDICT PERSUASION
PARTICIPATION
EXAMPLE 2:
TACTIC RATINGS FOR SITUATION 0: * REFER TO SCALE AT TOP OF PAGE '
INTERVENTION
EDICT
PERSUASION
PARTICIPATION
PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED INSTRUMENT BY DECEMBER 8. 1989
IN THE STAMPED, SELF-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE PROVIDED.

121
TACTICS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CHANGE
This study involves the investigation of the preferred application of four tactics or approaches to the
implementation of planned change by three levels of student affairs staff, the Chief Student Affairs
Officer, the Chief Housing Officer, and a Professional Member of the housing staff, who are directly
involved in the management of campus student housing. The four tactics defined for this study are
described in relation to the actions of the Chief Housing Officer as follows:
INTERVENTION
The Chief Housing Officer (CHO) becomes actively involved in serving as sponsor of the change(s)
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(s) by demonstrating improvements possible or the feasibility of improving
practices. Once other staff are adequately informed of the benefits of the planned changes, he/she
implements the change(s) and follows up by demonstrating the improvement(s) in performance or the
situation.
EDICT
The Chief Housing Officer (CHO), as sponsor of the planned change(s), identifies the needs and
opportunities. He/She weighs the alternatives and selects the necessary steps to accomplish the
change(s). The CHO retains complete control of the development and implementation of the change(s)
determined to be needed. Little or no input is sought or desired from others on the staff. He/She
issues directives that stipulate the change(s) to be initiated. Compliance with the change(s) is/are
anticipated and expected. CHO monitors change(s) for performance or situation improvement(s).
PERSUASION
The Chief Housing Officer (CHO), as sponsor of the change(s), identifies the needs and/or
opportunities. He/she 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 for performance or situation
improvement(s).
PARTICIPATION
The Chief Housing Officer (CHO), as sponsor of the planned change(s), 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 chief housing officer and monitored for performance or
situation improvement(s).

122
SCORING DIRECTIONS:
Beside each tactic name, reflect your preferences by assigning EACH tactic a rating number from 1 to 5 based on the scale
shown below. Your rating of each tactic should indicate the degree of appropriateness for each tactic as an approach to the
implementation of change(s) for the situation described.
[NEVER APPROPRIATE] <- 1 2 3 4 5 -> [ALWAYS APPROPRIATE]
SITUATION 1 During the past school year the housing organization experienced the first case of AIDS in the residence
halls. There was extreme turmoil on the staff (2 RAs and 1 graduate staff resigned). The news media were constantly pressing
for information, and the parents of other residents were highly concerned if not threatening at times. Many of the problems
could be traced to poor training of the staff, lack of education and understanding about the disease, and the lack of a policy from
which to operate. The President is expecting a full report for review of the plans for the coming year in terms of operating
policy, staff training and student information programming. A preliminary outline and interim policy is due in two weeks and
the full report is due in two months. The task is to plan and develop these changes for the coming year as well as meet the
expectations of the President.
TACTIC RATINGS FOR SITUATION 1: * REFER TO SCALE AT TOP OF PAGE *
INTERVENTION EDICT PERSUASION PARTICIPATION
SITUATION 2 A new Chief Housing Officer (CHO) for a large and complex housing operation has recently been hired.
For the past several years the previous CHO kept rental rate increases very low. Most year’s increases have averaged less than
3%, and 3 out of the last S years there have been no rate increases at all. At this time reserve funds are low but the operation
as a whole is financially sound. However, the new CHO's goals for the housing program call for several expansions and
renovations to operations and facilities. Computers and computer applications are far behind similar size operations, salaries
should be increased, new equipment and furniture should be purchased, staffing needs to be increased in some areas, fire code
corrections appear to be needed and asbestos abatement needs have exceeded plans. The new CHO feels there is a need to have
a number of years of higher rental rate increases to move the organization and facilities into the future. The task is to plan and
implement these future changes that will address the needs seen by the CHO.
TACTIC RATINGS FOR SITUATION 2: * REFER TO SCALE AT TOP OF PAGE *
INTERVENTION EDICT PERSUASION PARTICIPATION

123
SCORING DIRECTIONS:
Beside each tactic name, reflect your preferences by assigning EACH tactic a rating number from 1 to 5 based on the scale
shown below. Your rating of each tactic should indicate the degree of appropriateness for each tactic as an approach to the
implementation of change(s) for the situation described.
[NEVER APPROPRIATE] <- 1 2 3 4 5 -> [ALWAYS APPROPRIATE]
SITUATION 3 All of the residence halls at the institution have been of a traditional type, that is, double loaded corridor
halls (rooms on either side), floor lounge, community bathrooms at each end, generally holding 45 residents per floor. The
staffing pattern has been one Resident Assistant per floor and one Hall Director per building. Nine months from now, in the
Fall, a new residence facility will open that is an apartment style building. There will be apartments on four levels, all with
outside entrances. Each apartment will house four students in single bedrooms and is equipped with its own bathroom, kitchen
and living-dining room area. The concern at this time is with the staffing pattern that would best fit this facility and how to
apply the already established ’housing program’ in such a facility. The task is to plan the necessary changes in traditional
staffing patterns and in your ’housing program’ so that the new facility is incorporated fully into the operation.
TACTIC RATINGS FOR SITUATION 3: * REFER TO SCALE AT TOP OF PAGE *
INTERVENTION EDICT PERSUASION PARTICIPATION
SITUATION 4 Within the next six months the housing operation will assume responsibility for the maintenance of the
residence halls from the physical plant department. This change has been anticipated for several years so it is not a surprise.
However, now it is time to organize this new responsibility into reality. Changes must be made in the organizational structure,
budget, equipment inventory, parts supply, storage facilities, and supervisory responsibilities. The addition of this new segment
of staff and responsibility to the housing operation will have an effect on several staff positions and operating procedures (and
habits) within the organization. The task is to organize these new changes in responsibilities so that the new functions, and staff,
are incorporated easily with a minimum of problems.
TACTIC RATINGS FOR SITUATION 4: * REFER TO SCALE AT TOP OF PAGE *
INTERVENTION EDICT PERSUASION PARTICIPATION

124
SCORING DIRECTIONS:
Beside each tactic name, reflect your preferences by assigning EACH tactic a rating number from 1 to 5 based on the scale
shown below. Your rating of each tactic should indicate the degree of appropriateness for each tactic as an approach to the
implementation of change(s) for the situation described.
[NEVER APPROPRIATE] <- 1 2 3 4 5 -> [ALWAYS APPROPRIATE]
SITUATION 5 The Chief Housing Officer (CHO) of a medium size operation, has begun to observe that the housing
operation is functioning at a level that is not as efficient as it should be. Problems can be observed in the areas of information
and communication, training, programming, budget building and other areas for which the full-time staff has responsibility.
In the current staff structure there are two levels of full-time staff between the CHO and the resident assistants (undergraduate
staff). It appears that one of the problems is that the organization is too 'top heavy'. It is taking too long for decisions and
information to make their way through the levels of staff. A re-organization is necessary so that only one level of full-time staff
would be needed between the CHO and the RAs. This change, as envisioned, could save money and make the organization
more responsive to student needs. It has been decided to make this organizational change, however, it is likely the staff will
feel uneasy because their jobs might be affected. The task is to organize and implement this change in the housing operation.
TACTIC RATINGS FOR SITUATION 5: * REFER TO SCALE AT TOP OF PAGE *
INTERVENTION EDICT PERSUASION PARTICIPATION
SITUATION 6 For many years the housing operation has operated a very centralized budget process. That is, the Chief
Housing Officer (CHO) and the budget officer have generally made all budget decisions and allocations. This process has
served the organization well. However, recent pressure from the staff as well as a desire to provide more experience and
training for the professional staff has caused a re-thinking of the budget building process for the coming year. The CHO would
like to begin instituting a decentralized budget process. The task is to organize the system through which the CHO will receive
input, and how the information and requests will be used, how to hold staff accountable for their budgets, how to reward good
budget managers, and which levels of staff will give input.
TACTIC RATINGS FOR SITUATION 6: * REFER TO SCALE AT TOP OF PAGE *
INTERVENTION EDICT PERSUASION PARTICIPATION

125
SCORING DIRECTIONS:
Beside each tactic name, reflect your preferences by assigning EACH tactic a rating number from 1 to 5 based on the scale
shown below. Your rating of each tactic should indicate the degree of appropriateness for each tactic as an approach to the
implementation of change(s) for the situation described.
[NEVER APPROPRIATE] < - 1 2 3 4 5 -> [ALWAYS APPROPRIATE]
SITUATION 7 The Chief Housing Officer (CHO) of a fairly large staff has made it a point to drop a little note or offer
a word of praise to employees that they observe or learn have done an exceptionally good job at something. In a recent staff
meeting one of the Assistant Directors mentioned how a note that was sent by the CHO to one of her Hall Directors really had
made a positive and motivating impact. This comment has stimulated the idea that perhaps it is time the organization developed
and implemented a more formalized recognition program that involved all of the staff. Some of the staff have expressed extreme
reservations about such a program, feeling that this type of program could create harsh feelings between people getting
recognized and those not recognized. The CHO has decided that this program will be included as one of the major goals for
the organization for the coming academic year. The task is to establish the program within the organization for the coming year.
TACTIC RATINGS FOR SITUATION 7: * REFER TO SCALE AT TOP OF PAGE *
INTERVENTION EDICT PERSUASION PARTICIPATION
SITUATION 8 For a number of years the housing operation has included basic orientation and training programs. Most
of the refinements to an employee’s job come through individual instruction of the supervisor or through what they pick up from
their co-workers. The Chief Housing Officer (CHO) feels that the current orientation program is sufficient to get people started
on the job, but that there is much more that could be done with the area of in-service and developmental training. The goal
would be to create a training program that would not only help staff with their current work but would also provide them with
life skills, and skills to assist them with upward job mobility. The program will need the support and commitment of many
facets of the organization if this training program is to work. The task is to get this program in place and functioning as quickly
as possible, to encourage staff to teach topics, and to motivate all staff to attend these training and personal development
programs.
TACTIC RATINGS FOR SITUATION 8: * REFER TO SCALE AT TOP OF PAGE *
INTERVENTION EDICT PERSUASION PARTICIPATION

126
SCORING DIRECTIONS:
Beside each tactic name, reflect your preferences by assigning EACH tactic a rating number from 1 to 5 based on the scale
shown below. Your rating of each tactic should indicate the degree of appropriateness for each tactic as an approach to the
implementation of change(s) for the situation described.
[NEVER APPROPRIATE] <- 1 2 3 4 5 --> [ALWAYS APPROPRIATE]
SITUATION 9 The new Chief Housing Officer (CHO) has observed that the professional staff has operated on a fairly
autonomous basis for many years. There is no central set of guidelines or policy statements published from the department.
Staff generally rely on their own decision making skills, refer to past group staff discussions or call the CHO for information.
This situation is not conducive to consistent, nor quality, decision making. The Chief Housing Officer, feels it is imperative
that daily decision making be more consistent and uniform. The CHO has concluded that something must be done to standardize
and then publish general and specific housing policies for the housing staff. The task is to get these changes in place, and help
the staff understand the benefits of uniform policies and consistent decision making for the entire operation.
TACTIC RATINGS FOR SITUATION 9: * REFER TO SCALE AT TOP OF PAGE *
INTERVENTION EDICT PERSUASION PARTICIPATION
SITUATION 10 The residence halls have a Black minority population of about 15%. The RA staff consists of about
10% Black students. Within the past month the hall staffs have reported scattered incidents of racial intolerance. There have
been incidents of racial jokes and slurs coming from white students while in floor lounges, racially provocative posters and
symbols appearing in a few students’ rooms as well as on floor bulletin boards, two Black male RAs were attacked verbally
with racial slurs when they attempted to deal with a party involving all white students, and there has been at least one confirmed
case of outright racial intimidation of a Black female resident while in her residence hall room. There has been an attempt to
handle these incidents in the appropriate manner, however, it is clear that the goals developed at the beginning of the year to
encourage increased racial acceptance are not working. There is an immediate need for action before the situation becomes
volatile. There is a need to educate staff, reestablish Housing policy statements and guidelines, evaluate programming efforts,
and act decisively to end these incidents of racism and violence.
TACTIC RATINGS FOR SITUATION 10: * REFER TO SCALE AT TOP OF PAGE *
INTERVENTION EDICT PERSUASION PARTICIPATION

127
SCORING DIRECTIONS:
Beside each tactic name, reflect your preferences by assigning EACH tactic a rating number from 1 to 5 based on the scale
shown below. Your rating of each tactic should indicate the degree of appropriateness for each tactic as an approach to the
implementation of changefs) for the situation described.
[NEVER APPROPRIATE] <- 1 2 3 4 5 ~> [ALWAYS APPROPRIATE]
SITUATION 11 The housing maintenance and custodial staff frequently must work on joint projects such as the
renovating and cleaning of family housing apartments and the cleaning and general repair of the residence halls between
semesters. Each group thinks that their work is the most important, and deadline-oriented. There is an insistence by both
groups that they cannot work in the same location at the same time and get their work done quickly and effectively. Because
of a change in the academic calendar and a general need to improve efficiency overall, the Chief Housing Officer must correct
this situation. The task is to evaluate the situation via methods deemed effective, determine the problem areas, and make the
necessary changes to get the housing personnel working as a team to complete the assigned work.
TACTIC RATINGS FOR SITUATION 11: * REFER TO SCALE AT TOP OF PAGE *
INTERVENTION EDICT PERSUASION PARTICIPATION
SITUATION 12 One of the principle goals of the Chief Housing Officer (CHO) is to determine adequately how well
the staff is performing at their assigned tasks. One key method is through a positive type performance evaluation process.
From readings, training, and experience, the CHO knows that performance evaluation can be a useful tool for the positive
development of all levels of staff as well as a necessary information system from which one can plan, organize, and direct the
organization. The current system of personnel evaluation is very lacking. There are real inconsistencies in how well these
appraisals are done and how they are used with staff, and therefore, lack value for evaluating this particular area of the
operation. The CHO has decided to take action to correct this problem. This year one of the housing organization's goals will
be to overhaul the staff performance evaluation process. The task for the CHO is to get an evaluative process in place as soon
as possible so that he/she is better informed about the staff and their needs.
TACTIC RATINGS FOR SITUATION 12: * REFER TO SCALE AT TOP OF PAGE *
INTERVENTION EDICT PERSUASION PARTICIPATION
Thank You for Your Participation !
Please return promptly.

128
If you would like a copy of the results of this study please fill in the section
below and return with the completed instrument.
NOTE: This page will be detached from the completed instrument so as to
maintain the anonymity of the responses.
Name:
Tide:
Institution:
Address:
City:
State: Zip:
COMMENTS:

APPENDIX J
TABLE OF GENERAL DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Table J-l
Chief Chief
Student Affairs Housing Housing
Officers Officers Staff
N = 50 N = 53 N = 52
Average Institutional Enrollment
19,076
18,659
19,710
Average Housing Capacity
4,856
5,026
4,934
Average Years in Current Position
8.82
7.98
6.64
Average Years in Current Profession
20.96
18.67
14.38
Gender
Males
47
43
36
Females
3
10
16
Education Level
Professional
0
0
0
Doctorate
40
19
5
Specialist
0
4
1
Masters
10
25
40
Bachelors
0
5
6
No Degree
0
0
1
Age Ranges
Under 26
0
0
0
26-35
0
1
14
36-45
14
27
25
46 - 55
28
24
8
Over 55
6
1
3
129

REFERENCES
Integrity in the college curriculum: A report to the academic community. Association of
American Colleges (1985). Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.
Astin, A. L. (1985). Achieving educational excellence.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D., & Chin, R. (1985). The planning of change
(4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America.
New York: Harper & Row.
Bricketto, M. J. (1989). Using change strategies to involve faculty in student affairs.
NASPA Journal. 27(2), 95-100.
Blaesser, W. W. (1978). Organizational change and student development.
Journal of College Student Personnel. 19, 109-118.
Burke, W. W. (1982). Organization development: Principles and practices.
Boston: Little, Brown.
Burke, W. W. (1987). Organization development: A normative view.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Chickering, A. W. & Associates (1981). The modern American college.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Connor, P. E., & Lake, L. K. (1988). Managing organizational change.
New York: Praeger.
Dalziel, M. M. & Schoonover, S. C. (1988). Changing wavs: A practical tool for
implementing change within organizations. New York: AMACOM.
Foster, W. (1986). Paradigms and promises: New approaches to educational
administration. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.
Foxley, C. H. (1980). Determinants of managerial effectiveness. In C. Foxley (Ed.),
New directions for student services: Applying management techniques
(pp. 1-9). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
French, W. L., & Bell, C. H., Jr. (1984). Organizational development: Behavioral
science interventions for organizational development. (3rd ed.). Engelwood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
130

131
Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M. & Donnelly, J. H. (1985). Organizations: Behavior-
structure. process. (5th ed.). Plano: Business Publications, Inc.
Gulick, L., & Urwick, L. (Eds.). (1969). Papers on the science of administration.
New York: Kelley.
Hodgkinson, H. L. (1983, March-April). Guess who’s coming to college-A demographic
portrait of students of the 1990’s. Academe. 13-20.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1982). Management of organizational behavior:
Utilizing human resources. (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Keller, G. (1983). Academic strategy: The management revolution in American
higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Koontz, H., & O’Donnell, C. (1976). Management: A systems and contingency analysis
of management functions. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kuh, G. D. (1981). Beyond student development: Contemporary priorities for
student affairs. NASPA Journal. 18(4), 29-36.
Kurpius, D.J. (1980). Organizational development, systems analysis, and planned
change. In Foxley, C. (Ed.), New directions for student services: Applying
management techniques (pp. 11-26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method, and reality in
social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations. 1(1),
5-41.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in the social sciences. New York: Harper & Row.
Lindquist, J. (1978). Strategies for change. Berkeley: Pacific Soundings.
Lippitt, G. L. (1982). Organizational renewal: A wholistic approach to
organizational development (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Printice-Hall,
Inc.
Longenecker, J. G. (1977). Principles of management and organizational behavior
(4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrell Publishing Co.
Mescon, M. H., Albert, M., & Khedouri, F. (1981). Management: Individual and
organizational effectiveness. New York: Harper & Row.
Martel, L. (1986). Mastering change: The kev to business success. New York:
Simon & Schuster.

132
Michael, S. R., Luthans, F., Odióme, G. S., Burke, W. W., & Hayden, S. (1981).
Techniques of organizational change. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Miller, T. K. & Prince, J. S. (1976). The future of student affairs. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row.
Involvement in learning: Realizing the potential of American higher education. National
Institute of Education (1984).
Nutt, P. C. (1986). Tactics of implementation. Academy of Management Journal.
29(2), 230-261.
Nutt, P. C. (1987). Identifying and appraising how managers install strategy.
Strategic Management Journal. 8, 1-14.
Nutt, P. C. (1989). Making tough decisions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Peters, T. J. (1985). A passion for excellence. New York: Random House.
Peters, T. J. (1987). Thriving on chaos. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Harper &
Row.
Plato, K. C. (1977). Student development as a policy: Strategies for implementation.
Journal of College Student Personnel. 18. 518-521.
Regents Study Commission on Funding for Excellence (1985). A path to excellence in
public higher education in Florida. Tallahassee: Florida Board of Regents.
Sautter, J. A. (1989). 1989 ACUHO-I membership directory. Columbus: ACUHO-I
Central Support Services.
Strange, C. C. (1981). Organizational barriers to student development: Strategies for
institutional change. NASPA Journal. J9(l), 12-19.
Trewatha, R. L., & Newport, M. G., (1979). Management: Functions and behavior
(Rev. ed.). New York: Business Publications, Inc.
Tushman, M. (1974). Organizational change: An exploratory study and case history.
Ithaca: Cornell University.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Branan David Woodham was born on September 4, 1950, in Mobile, Alabama, and was
educated in the public schools of Mobile, Alabama, and San Antonio, Texas. He graduated
from MacArthur High School of San Antonio, Texas, in 1968.
Mr. Woodham attended Auburn University and graduated in 1972 with a Bachelor of
Science in zoology. In 1974 he received his Master of Education degree in college student
development also from Auburn University.
After graduation from Auburn, Mr. Woodham accepted a position as a Residence Hall
Director at Indiana State University in Terre Haute, Indiana. He was employed in this
position until 1977. In the fall of 1977 he accepted a position as Residence Life Coordinator
with the Division of Housing at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida. He served
in this role for one year and was promoted to Assistant Director of Housing for Residence
Life. He continued as an Assistant Director of Housing with the Division of Housing until
leaving the university in 1990. In 1990, Mr. Woodham accepted the position of Director of
Housing with the University of North Florida in Jacksonville, Florida. Mr. Woodham began
his doctoral work as a part-time student in the Spring of 1984.
133

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a
dissertation for the degree if Doctor of Philosophy.
Ji.
íes L. Wattenbarger, Chair
distinguished Service Professor
of Educational Leadership
I certify that 1 have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a
dissertation for the degree if Doctor of Philosophy.
C. Arthur Sandeen
Professor of Educational Leadership
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a
dissertation for the degree if Doctor of Philosophy.
V /
/
John H. James ^
Associate Professor of Management
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education
and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
December 1991
Dean, College of Education
Dean, Graduate School

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08285 373 9