Dynas&c Cycle: A Resource Alloca&on theme for Addressing Dissent in universi&es Raafat Zaini, Khalid Saeed, Oleg Pavlov, Michael Elmes
Worcester Polytechnic Ins&tute 28th System Dynamics Colloquium @WPI 23 May 2014
Content • • • • • • •
Mo&va&on Background Goals and prospectus Modeling Policy Experiments Conclusion Suggested future work 1
Research Universi&es Strategy issues (HE)
July 2011
R&D Org. (Projects Dynamics view) Qualifier (Dynas&c May cycle, 2012 Professional competence models)
4/2/2013
Nov. 2012
Dissent in Organiza&ons May – Dec 2012 Nov. 2013
Compare with other Research universi&es 15 April 2013
Project with MIT
June 2013
Innova&on sustainability in R&D organiza&ons
Compare with other succ . univ.
4/5/13
Strategies for April University 2012 Growth (HE)
opera&onal variables to create the issue reference mode
23April 2013
My “Search for Research” Story .. So far
Empirical Case of a technical organiza&on
Interna&onal
(HE)
March 2013
US
organiza&on
February 2013
2
News Headlines Higher ed budgets up in admin category By Jon Marcus Telegram.com, May 19, 2013
New Suffolk U. policy allows firing of tenured profs By Keith Bumon Educa&onDive.com, APRIL 29, 2014
College administrator says he faked test scores to boost ra&ng Educa&on Dive By Daniel Shumski February 18, 2014 |
UC OKs paying surgeon $10 million in whistleblower-‐ retalia&on case By Chad Terhune la&mes.com April 22, 2014
The danger of corporate thinking in higher educa&on By Kimmo Alajoutsijärvi FT.com, April 27 2014
Regents pass social media policy in wake of Guth tweet, Lawrence Journal World, December 18 2013
Establishing a Lean Six Sigma in Higher Educa&on
By Carsten Svensson, Mohamed Ba-‐Essa, and Majed Bakhsh First Interna&onal Conference on LSS for Higher Educa&on
AAUP Leaders Face Backlash Over Unioniza&on Emphasis By Peter Schmidt Chronicle.com, February 26, 2014
3
In the literature • (Rosovsky, Henry. 1990): – Faculty governance as a principled form of dissent – Tenure protec&ng academic freedom.
• (Hodgkinson, Harold L., & Meeth, L. R.,1976): – Issues with Faculty governance.
• (Bok, 2013): – Pressure on universi&es – Focus on growth, corpora&za&on, and limits on voice
• (Jain, Ravi, Triandis, Harry C, & Weick, Cynthia W. ,2010): – Faculty and university performance
• (Christensen, Clayton M., & Eyring, Henry J. , 2011): – Growth and the need for management professionals in higher educa&ons. 4
Why dissent in universi&es? • Hard wired for dissent • Going through change • Change could impact voice expression • Impact on performance?
5
Dissent • Any form of expressing : – Discontent with a management constraint or expecta&ons not met(Kassing, 2011) – Differences in opinion, percep&ons, goals, and beliefs about certain issues in the organiza&on (Perlow & Repenning, 2009)
6
Dissent in Organiza&ons •
(Kassing , 1997-‐2013):
– Dissent is ever present in organiza&ons – Dissent accumula&on and the effect of residual dissent is not yet explored. – Repe&&ve upward dissent can stretch over &me.
•
( Hegstrom,1995; Perry et al. ,1994):
•
(Graham, 1986, p. 3):
– Organiza&ons may vary in their tolerance to dissent – The acid test of an organiza&onal communica&on system is its reac&on to those who dissent – Scholars placed it as an internal tool for "regula&ng the quality of organiza&onal performance"
•
(Tourish, 2005):
– Too much dissent could be debilita&ng
•
(Cheney, 1995; Stohl and Cheney, 2001):
– The democra&c processes to handle dissent takes &me and pa&ence
7
Dissent expression þ Upward dissent þ Latent dissent ¨ Displaced dissent “Whistle blowing”
8
Dissent implica&ons (Kassing, 2011) • High tolerance -‐> Overloaded • Reasonable tolerance -‐> Op&mal • Low tolerance -‐> Underrepresented
9
Research Ques&ons • • • • • •
Are these states eternal? How would they change? Does dissent tolerance change? How? How dissent is generated and managed? How dissent accumulates? What is the impact of its accumula&on?
10
Aggregate dynamic hypothesis Organiza&onal Composi&on
Organiza&onal Communica&on climate
Organiza&onal Performance 11
Research goals • Understanding how universi&es could evolve over &me from the dissent perspec&ve using system dynamics methodology By • Exploring the dynamic interac&on of: – organiza&onal communica&on climate – organiza&on composi&on – performance
12
Research prospectus • Construct a dissent expression framework from the organiza&onal communica&on literature • U&lize the Dynas&c Cycle generic structure to represent the organiza&onal composi&on and performance • Build a generic frame work for dissent in universi&es using system dynamics • Produce a numerical dynamic simula&on under different possible policy scenarios • Suggest policy interven&ons
13
Research contribu&on • Contribu&on to the literature: – – – –
Organiza&onal behavior Organiza&onal communica&on /dissent literature Higher Educa&on Management System Dynamics applica&on in organiza&ons
14
Modeling • Conceptualiza&on: – Dissent expression – Organiza&onal composi&on
• Model Building
15
Dissent Expression
16
Dissent Expression
17
Dissent Expression
18
Dissent Expression
19
Dissent Expression
20
Dissent Expression
21
Dynas&c Cycle
Dynas&c cycle: a generic structure describing resource alloca&on in poli&cal economies, markets and firms, Source: (Saeed and Pavlov 2008)
22
Performance indices
State space representa&on for the performance indices in a poli&cal system , source: (Saeed, Pavlov, Skorinko, & Smith, 2014)
23
Organiza&onal composi&on
Organiza&onal composi&on Administrators
• Exercise control to maintain order • Handle dissent • Encourage DF to become EF • Load EF with admin roles
Engaged Faculty • Produce useful tangible/ intangible output • Exercise upward dissent • Could move to DF when ignored or dismissed
Disengaged Faculty • May produce at substandard • Exercise latent dissent • Distrac&on • Could become EF if given a chance 24
Dissent Expression
25
Dissent Expression
Org. composi&on
26
27
28
Organiza&onal climate
Organiza&onal composi&on
29
Organiza&onal Composi&on Indicators Admin
Administra&on Influence
Engaged Faculty
Engaged Faculty Influence
Disengaged Faculty
Disengaged Faculty Influence
30
31
32
33
34
35
Organiza&onal climate Pcvd. mgmt. resp.=PD/(UD+DD+ID+LD)
Organiza&onal composi&on
Organiza
Organiza&onal performance
36
Performance Matrix
37
Performance Matrix Overloaded
Op&mal !
Underrepresented
38
Model Simula&on • Ini&aliza&on in equilibrium • Growth scenarios: – Infuse each popula&on independently – To understand the basic dynamics
• Change in capabili&es – Both single and combined capabili&es – To find interven&on polices
39
Policy Experiments" percei…iveness v. orgniz…uctivity: 1 - 2 - 3 -
I. Growth scenarios increase each population by (+20%)
Perceived Management Responsiveness
2.00
1.00
II
Add Disengaged faculty
Add administrators
I
Add Engaged Faculty
0.00 0.00
IV 1.00 orgnizational productivity
Organiza&onal Produc&vity
III 2.00 40
Policy Experiments" percei…iveness v. orgniz…uctivity: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 -
Perceived Management Responsiveness
II. Changes in capabilities ( + 20%) 2.00
Increase Engaged Faculty produc&vity & processing dissent
Increase processing dissent
I
II
1.00
Increase
Increase tolerance to dissent
Engaged Faculty produc&vity
IV
0.00 0.00
1.00 orgnizational productivity Organiza&onal Produc&vity
III 2.00
41
Policy Experiments" percei…iveness v. orgniz…uctivity: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 -
Perceived Management Responsiveness
II. Changes in capabilities ( + 20%) 2.00
Increase Engaged Faculty produc&vity & processing dissent
Overloaded Increase processing dissent
I
II
1.00
Increase
Increase tolerance to dissent
Engaged Faculty produc&vity
Underrepresented
IV
0.00 0.00
Op&mal !
1.00 orgnizational productivity Organiza&onal Produc&vity
III 2.00
42
Perceived Management Responsiveness
III. Changes in multiple capabilities ( ± 20%) percei…iveness v. orgniz…uctivity:
1-2-3-4-5-
Op&mum space
2.00
`
Page 2
Policy Experiments"
1.00
0.00 -0.70
II
I
IV
III
1.00 orgnizational productivity Organiza&onal Produc&vity
2.70 43
Summary of policies for changing in multiple organizational capabilities Simulation (figure)
Combined policies
Policy instrument
Change
(curve)
(value)
Increase UD productivity + dissent processing (curve 1)
+20%
Organizational productivity
Perceived management responsiveness (quadrant)
(quadrant) 1
1
(0.06,0.6) 1 + increase dissent tolerance (curve 2)
+20% (0.3)
1
1
1+ decrease dissent tolerance (curve 3)
+20% (0.2)
1
1
2+ decrease dissent per dissenter (curve 4)
-20% (0.08)
1
1
3 + decrease dissent per dissenter (curve 5)
-20% (0.08)
1
1
44
Conclusion •
Successful construc&on of a generic model by combining two theore&cal frameworks ( Dynas&c cycle and dissent expression)
•
Organiza&onal composi&on, climate, and performance are dynamic phenomena that change over the organiza&on life at different rates and through different paths
•
State space representa&on offers a canvas for exploring dissent implica&ons under different policy scenarios
•
Dissent accumula&on and deple&on influence evolu&on paths that pass through mul&ple states
•
The immediate performance improvements from growth might not be sustainable
•
A dissent tolerant environment is hard to support when not reinforced by improvements in other capabili&es including dissent processing and produc&vity
45
Future work •
Support the theore&cal findings by empirical cases for higher educa&on ins&tu&ons
•
Expanding the model boundary to allow hiring and amri&on would extend the feed back and indigenize growth and decline of the popula&ons
•
The above would enable including the role of displaced dissent and the choice to exit the ins&tu&on which might provide a more richer view to the issue
46
Ques&ons, comments!! Thank you.